413 cases · page 1 of 14
Showing 1–29Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, which had been filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited (the decisions not being titled 'order', the R. 190-Applications not appearing in the requests section, and incomplete appeal information) did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing the missed 15-day appeal deadline under R. 224.1(b) RoP.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190-Applications (production of evidence) contained in the Munich Local Division's decisions of 11 March 2026, which it had filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that it had taken all due care as required by R. 320 RoP, distinguishing the present case from the AIM v Supponor precedent and finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV v.In(k)control BV
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English. The appellants (Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV) appealed the decision of the President of the Local Division Brussels, who had rejected their request to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the President had correctly exercised her discretion in maintaining Dutch as the language of proceedings, given that both parties are established in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium and the respondent is a small enterprise.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in an appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274. The judge-rapporteur declined TCL's request to hold an interim conference, finding no reason to deviate from the standard Rules of Procedure. The appeal was deemed ready for oral hearing, which was scheduled for 28 January 2027 in Luxembourg.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Emboline Inc.'s application seeking to disregard certain evidence as late-filed or, alternatively, to be granted leave to file further written pleadings in the appeal proceedings. The disputed evidence consisted of Exhibit HRM 26 (a written witness statement of Prof. Marco De Carlo) and paragraphs 101–120 of AorticLab srl's Statement of response. The Court held that no further pleadings or evidence would be allowed at that stage and ordered the written procedure to be closed.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
Appeal
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-07-06) under reference UPC_4F034E8470, Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA appeared in dispute with Polidoro S.p.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Application Rop 333
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited, Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
*** v.AMYCEL, LLC
Generic application
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH, NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.
Appeal RoP220.1
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This case concerns appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against an order of the Local Division of The Hague dated 27 May 2026, which granted Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744 in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of First Instance had ordered a phased confidentiality regime restricting access to sensitive licensing information to external representatives and independent licensing experts, excluding in-house representatives during the first phase. Shenzhen Transsion sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the CFI on 15 June 2026, and the appeals were lodged on 24 June 2026, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.
This is a Final Order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities (SA, SAS, SRL, and GmbH). The order addresses multiple legal issues including urgency in the context of multiple patents, the patent holder's obligation to investigate potential infringements, and cost allocation following the withdrawal of the application. The Court of Appeal provided headnotes on the principles governing urgency, the duty to investigate, and the allocation of costs when an application is withdrawn.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
Application Rop 265
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning an application by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, finding that TRUMPF Laser UK Limited had no legitimate interest in a court decision since the appeal had not yet been formally served. IPG Laser had filed the appeal solely to preserve the statutory deadline and did not intend to pursue it substantively.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
Other
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in cross-appeals between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action filed by Nera against Xiaomi before the Local Division Hamburg, along with Xiaomi's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The order addresses procedural matters arising from the appeal proceedings, including the handling of auxiliary requests and prior art citations raised by Xiaomi in its invalidity attacks.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Appeal RoP220.1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
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.