95 cases · page 2 of 4
Showing 31–59Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
Infringement Action
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.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a security deposit of EUR 56,000 previously provided under Rule 158 RoP to cover the legal costs of the Defendants in proceedings related to European Patent EP1944067. The underlying provisional measures application had been dismissed, and the Claimant had been ordered to pay costs. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between the parties, the Court ordered the release of the security deposit for direct transfer to Kinexon's bank account in accordance with the settlement.
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.Respondent
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 Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd., an Ireland-based patent licensing company, sued several entities of the Xiaomi group for infringement of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless energy receivers, based on the use of such devices in smartphones including the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the patent proprietor defended the patent in auxiliary requests. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed, among other things, the admissibility of a high number of auxiliary requests with a narrow core, the prohibition of intermediate generalization under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC, and the relevance of a prior art citation concerning near-field communication antenna tuning as opposed to wireless power receivers.
Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V. v.Respondent
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.Respondent
This case concerns an application by the plaintiff, Lionra Technologies Ltd., for retroactive extension of time limits under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, alternatively for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, after missing the deadline under Rule 151 RoP for filing a cost submission application. The plaintiff argued that an experienced legal assistant from the litigation secretariat of its representative's law firm overlooked and failed to note the deadline, despite it being listed in a deadline overview specifically maintained for UPC proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the legal question of whether a missed deadline can only be remedied by an application for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, which takes precedence over Rule 9.3 RoP, and clarified the autonomous interpretation of the standard of care required under Rule 320.1 RoP.
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
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
This case concerns a procedural order issued by the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against five Epson entities regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS filed an objection under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, challenging the court's jurisdiction on the ground that Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court was allegedly invalid. The dispute centers on whether Dolby's May 11, 2023 opt-out application, which listed the patent in suit on page 97, was properly withdrawn to bring the patent back under the court's jurisdiction.
Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a cost order under Rule 333 RoP. The Defendants sought review of the judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 April 2025, which had dismissed their application to require the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs. The Defendants argued that the Local Division Munich reached the opposite conclusion in a parallel proceeding between the same parties, and that UPC decisions, like German court decisions, cannot be enforced in China, justifying a security for costs order. The Claimant defended the original order, contending the Court applied the correct legal standard.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV, a Belgium-based company specializing in industrial inkjet technology, sued nine European entities belonging to the French luxury conglomerate Kering (including Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and related companies) in connection with European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 titled 'Decorating Natural Leather.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in its entirety. The Local Division Hamburg addressed key issues including the scope of counterclaim attacks under Articles 32(1)(e) and 65(1) UPCA, claim interpretation using the patent as its own lexicon, and the admissibility of late-filed validity arguments and prior art documents introduced for the first time at the oral hearing.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP2642632. The defendants sought to have the plaintiff's arguments regarding the patentability of auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A, raised in the reply to the patent amendment request, disregarded as late-filed under Rule 9.2 RoP. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that when auxiliary requests combine previously explained auxiliary requests, a reference to those earlier explanations in the patent amendment request is sufficient, and that merely deepening submissions in the reply does not constitute late filing.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_537/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/03/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Defendant) - 11-1 Hokotate-cho, Kamitoba, Minami-ku - 601-8501 - Kyoto - JP Represented by Johannes Heselberger
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.