364 cases · page 2 of 13
Showing 31–59Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Order
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. and Others (Netgear Deutschland GmbH and Others as Respondents before Court of First Instance)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Huawei's appeals against an order of the Local Chamber Munich granting TP-Link access to certain redacted documents filed in infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321. The court held that TP-Link had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent, and that Huawei failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming confidentiality under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Appeal from the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision invalidating European Patent EP 2 548 648 (relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material) and dismissing the infringement action. The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance, upheld the validity of the patent in its granted form, found direct and indirect infringement by Europe Forestry's 'Europe Grinders'/'Europe Chip Mills' products, and granted remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, information, and damages.
bioMérieux UK Limited and Others v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
Valeo Systemes D'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, Robert Bosch Produktie S.A, Robert Bosch DOO, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against an order of the judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris section) that granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, ruling the Paris division lacked jurisdiction and transferring the infringement action to the Düsseldorf local division with English as the language of proceedings. The Court held that the contested order, which granted the preliminary objection without terminating proceedings against one of the parties, fell under neither the first nor the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, and applied the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP by analogy to declare the appeal admissible. The Court also rejected the Bosch entities' subsidiary request to suspend the first instance proceedings.
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Centripetal Limited's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's revocation of a Saisie Order that had granted Centripetal's application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in connection with European patent EP 3 821 580. The Court held that Centripetal's amended requests submitted on appeal, which sought to broaden the scope of the original Saisie Order, were inadmissible because they were filed for the first time on appeal without justification and seriously prejudiced Palo Alto's ability to defend itself.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
This order concerns a request by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG for the release of a €19,000 security for costs previously deposited by Bhagat Textile Engineers following an adverse patent infringement ruling. After the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the procedural costs owed by Bhagat to Oerlikon, and Bhagat consented to the release, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the security to Oerlikon's bank account.
Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Alpinestars before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an order of the Milan Local Division that separated proceedings concerning two European patents (EP '364 and EP '117). After the Local Division amended its impugned order and granted leave to appeal, Alpinestars withdrew its request for discretionary review. The Court of Appeal declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Alpinestars.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This appeal concerned the scope of confidentiality protection measures under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in patent infringement proceedings involving FRAND licence determinations. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Vivo's employees and internal support staff should have access to highly confidential information (HCI) including comparable licence agreements, and modified the first instance orders to include internal support staff while maintaining access for named employees subject to restrictions on their involvement in licensing negotiations.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns appeals by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the impugned orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for information contained in three Confidential Licence Agreements, including a five-year licensing bar on the designated natural persons from each party. The Court of Appeal also set a penalty of €1,000,000 per culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declined to decide at that stage on Merz's request to keep a newly submitted piece of evidence (Exhibit 823) confidential from public access under Article 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP. Merz had uploaded the exhibit under the HC (highly confidential) code without filing a simultaneous application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP. The Court held that R. 262.2 RoP requests concern future public access requests, not restrictions on disclosure to the opposing party, and that uploading under HC code without a R. 262A RoP application lacks legal basis.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This case concerns cross-appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality measures ordered in underlying patent infringement proceedings. Sun Patent Trust sued Vivo entities seeking determination of FRAND licence terms for 4G+ technologies and filed applications for protection of confidential information, ultimately requesting an 'External Eyes Only' regime excluding Vivo's employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of named Vivo employees in the access circle, modified the orders to include internal support staff, and permitted use of confidential information for settlement discussions.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns an appeal by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the lower court's orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for certain Confidential Licence Agreements, with access restricted to external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party, subject to a five-year licensing bar. The Court also imposed a penalty of €1,000,000 for each culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
Decision of the President of the UPC Court of Appeal on Petition for Review of Registrar's Decision (EPLC Rules, Rule 12.1) v.Ex Parte
A European Patent Attorney applied on 29 August 2025 to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the one-year time limit is not discriminatory and that the applicant's qualification could not be deemed an appropriate qualification under Article 48(2) UPCA.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against an order of the Central Division (Paris section). The Paris CD had granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, transferring the infringement action concerning EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf local division and setting English as the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur raised the question of the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited the Bosch respondents to submit comments within seven days on this issue.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against a first-instance decision revoking European Patent EP 3 498 115, following the dismissal of Juul Labs' appeal at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The Court ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 504 990. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently upheld that revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Angelalign Technology Inc. et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno applied for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft following Microsoft's successful infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. Suinno sought to reduce the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, holding that the awarded costs were proportionate and within the applicable ceiling, and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment.
Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
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.