353 cases · page 2 of 12
Showing 31–59Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as entirely inadmissible the appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated 19 December 2025, which had ordered Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that Adobe had failed to first obtain authorization to appeal from the first instance court as required by Rule 220.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning the suspension of appeal proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Both parties jointly requested suspension of the appeal proceedings regarding an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation due to an out-of-court settlement. The Court of Appeal granted the joint request and ordered the suspension of both appeal proceedings to prevent the deadline for filing the appeal brief from expiring before decisions on the withdrawal applications are made.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
The Court of Appeal had previously ordered ONWARD Medical N.V. to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Niche Biomedical, Inc. filed a cost assessment application on 27 April 2026, but withdrew it the same day, stating it would refile the application at the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal by analogy to Rule 265(1) RoP without a hearing, finding that the respondent's interest was not affected and that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-04-17) under reference UPC_5B2F76A36A, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appeared in dispute with Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 671 173. The appellant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought a stay of proceedings and security for costs against Microsoft Corporation in the context of a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal framework under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rules 158 and 295 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying who may request security for costs and under what circumstances such requests are admissible.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109 RoP in connection with appeals against orders of the Paris Central Division. The respondents (Robert Bosch entities) sought simultaneous French-English interpretation for the appeal hearing, while the appellant (Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage) opposed the request. The Court rejected the interpretation request and ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (in 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
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., 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
This appeal concerned the review of an ex parte order for inspection issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf. Ecovacs had applied for an order to inspect and preserve evidence of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners exhibited at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 808 512. The Court of Appeal addressed the heightened duty of candour imposed on applicants seeking ex parte orders under R. 192.3 RoP, holding that omissions and distorted accounts of material facts relevant to the proportionality assessment cannot be remedied by later submissions in response to a request for review.
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
1 Ordonnance de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13 mars 2026 EN-TÊTE : En principe, le mémoire en demande doit contenir les éléments de droit et fait nécessaires pour justifier la compétence de la juridiction. Lorsque la compétence de la juridiction est fo
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 appeal concerned EP 1 962 668, a patent dispute in which F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH had obtained an order for interim measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 5, 2025. The Menarini entities appealed that order. Before the appeal could be heard, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Roche withdrew its request for interim measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and terminated the proceedings, noting that each party would bear its own costs.
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.
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.
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.
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.