364 cases · page 1 of 13
Showing 1–29Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Amazon.com, Inc. and Others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a cost determination application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine costs and that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance, even when they relate to costs of appeal proceedings. Rematec's request to refer the cost determination application to the Local Division Mannheim, while preserving the original filing date, was rejected.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. for alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation, particularly transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation. The Court of Appeal addressed key issues including the permissibility of asserting a patent in a non-registered claim form in interim proceedings, the admissibility of new auxiliary requests under R. 222 RoP, and the determination of intended use under Art. 26 EPGÜ. The appeal was dismissed, and ONWARD Medical was ordered to pay provisional costs of EUR 56,000 to Niche Biomedical.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
ALPINA Coffee Systems appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding infringement of EP 3 398 487 and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that ALPINA failed to demonstrate that the contested decision was evidently erroneous, that enforcement would render the appeal moot, or that fundamental procedural rights were violated, and that its arguments regarding potential double modification of the accused embodiment due to parallel proceedings were too vague and speculative.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., and Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's denial of its requests under R. 262.2 RoP to classify certain business information as confidential. The court held that trade secrets or confidential information lose their protected character when disclosed to the opposing party without a R. 262A RoP order or other restriction, and that a R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically prevent the other party from disclosing the information.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs obtained an ex parte inspection order from the Local Division Düsseldorf to inspect Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin in connection with patent EP 3 808 512. Upon Roborock's request for review, the Local Division revoked the inspection order, finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP by failing to disclose that Roborock itself was selling the contested products directly to German customers via Amazon. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Ecovacs' appeal and ordering Ecovacs to bear Roborock's costs.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, OpenAI LP, OpenAI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity v.Keeex SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court reversed the Paris Local Division's order that had rejected preliminary objections challenging its international jurisdiction in a patent infringement action brought by Keeex SAS concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that the UPC's jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 is limited to the territory of UPC member states and cannot extend to alleged infringement of national patent parts in non-member states such as Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson, proprietor of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance (the Dyson Airwrap), sought provisional measures against Dreame entities for alleged infringement by their hair dryer products. The Hamburg Local Division granted an injunction covering the Old Dreame Products but not the New Dreame Products. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeal dismissed Dreame's appeal, allowed Dyson's appeal, and extended the provisional measures to the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, while staying proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Eurep GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction obtained by Dyson Technology Limited against Dreame International, Eurep GmbH, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB for alleged infringement of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a third-state defendant (Dreame International) in relation to Spain and over an EU-based authorized representative (Eurep).
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH and others v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European patent EP 3 831 283. The Paris Central Division had dismissed Sibio's revocation action and maintained the patent as granted. On appeal, Sibio requested further exchanges of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP after Abbott's Statement of response referenced six auxiliary requests. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the proceedings from the first instance and did not require refiling on appeal.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Others v.Amgen, Inc.
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
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.