364 cases · page 4 of 13
Showing 91–119Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Managing Directors v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin companies to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy infringing wireless chargers, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings. The court also addressed key legal questions regarding the interpretation of 'offering' under Art. 25 EPGÜ, liability of managing directors for patent infringement, and the proportionality of corrective measures.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Others v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. Philips, the patent holder, sued Belkin companies and their managing directors for offering wireless chargers on www.belkin.com that comply with the Qi standard's Extended Power Profile. The Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeals, ordering injunctive relief and corrective measures against the corporate defendants while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings, and declined to hold the individual managing directors personally liable.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited and Others
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated October 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997 relating to wireless inductive power transfer. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities (and their managing directors) for patent infringement regarding wireless chargers meeting the Qi Extended Power Profile standard, while Belkin filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy the infringing products, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Bruker's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's decision to reimburse only 60% of the court fees paid for Bruker's application for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP. The court held that a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP forms part of the separate procedure for the determination of damages governed by Chapter 4 of Part 1 RoP, requiring payment of both a fixed fee and a value-based fee. The court further found that combining a request to establish liability with a request to lay open books does not entitle the applicant to a reduced or no fee.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH & Others v.Washtower IP B.V. & Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. Apple was granted the opportunity to file a Statement in intervention and to participate in the oral hearing in support of Ericsson.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. Sun Patent Trust had appealed orders of the Paris Local Division that permitted three Vivo employees to access highly confidential information (HCI), including agreements between Sun Patent Trust and Apple. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple's intervention, finding that Apple had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of the appeals as a party to the agreements containing the confidential information at issue.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by the co-owners of EP 3 691 518 against the rejection of their request for unitary effect. The court confirmed that the one-month non-extendable deadline under Rule 7(3) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (RPU) for remedying irregularities is mandatory and excluded from restitutio in integrum under Rule 22(6) RPU. The court also held that interlocutory revision by the EPO under Rule 91 RoP is excluded for expedited actions under Rule 97 RoP.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP for its appeal against a Paris Local Division order that granted three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information (HCI) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose if the HCI were disclosed to the designated employees, given the existing confidentiality obligations and penalty provisions in the impugned order.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. – Withdrawal of Intervention Application v.Ex Parte
This order concerns an application by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. to withdraw their application to intervene in appeal proceedings between LAMA France and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, finding that Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an intervention application under Rule 313, and that no costs decision was necessary.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, dated 21 August 2025, concerns Yealink's Request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese during an oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. Yealink, the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827, argued that interpretation was necessary because it is based in China and its representatives would have difficulty following the proceedings. The Court of Appeal denied the Request, holding that UPC proceedings are adversarial and commercial in nature, that parties must be represented by lawyers or patent attorneys familiar with the language of proceedings, and that the voluntary presence of company officials does not justify court-ordered interpretation.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected expert's application for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had declared expert's application for cost assessment inadmissible as time-barred under R. 151 RoP, having been filed more than one month after the main decision was served via the CMS. The Court of Appeal held that no preliminary reference to the CJEU was necessary, finding that the one-month deadline under R. 151 RoP is not disproportionate and does not violate Art. 69 UPCA or Art. 47 of the EU Charter.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed RiVOLUTiON GmbH's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first-instance preliminary injunction order. The Local Chamber Munich had ordered RiVOLUTiON to cease offering and selling surgical instruments infringing claim 1 of EP 2 515 768 in Germany, with a penalty payment for non-compliance and a cost reimbursement of €64,000 to Cilag. The Court of Appeal held that evident errors in the first-instance order could not be established without the reasoning being available, and that the balancing of interests did not justify a stay.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH & Cisco Systems, Inc.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time limits in an appeal proceedings related to EP 2 201 740. The Court of Appeal extended the deadline for Cisco to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco's requested one-month extension was unreasonably long while Lionra's requested one-week extension was unreasonably short.
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.