353 cases · page 5 of 12
Showing 121–149Expert e-Commerce GmbH, Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed against the decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024) were heard together at an oral hearing on July 11, 2025, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening in support of 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, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and 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.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office (EPO)
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande d'annulation d'une décision prise par l'Office de rejet d'une demande d'effet unitaire (R. 97 RdP) rendue le 16 septembre 2025 EN-TETE • Conformément aux dispositions de la Règle 85(2) RdP,
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.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
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.
LIFE 365 S.R.L., LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) d’une demande d’intervention (R. 313 RoP) rendue le 21 août 2025 DEMANDERESSES LIFE 365 S.R.L., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italie représentée par Michele De
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Respondent
This Order of the Court of Appeal concerns Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese for an upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. The Court of Appeal addressed whether simultaneous interpretation should be ordered at the Court's expense or whether Yealink should be permitted to engage interpreters at its own cost. The Court held that the mere fact that a defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not official does not justify ordering simultaneous interpretation, and that company officials' difficulties in following proceedings also do not generally warrant such 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.Respondent
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.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order disregarding a post-hearing brief filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. following the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. The court held that under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for filing further pleadings after the close of written proceedings without prior court approval, and this applies even more so after the oral hearing when the case is ready for decision. The court further held that there is no need to respond in writing to the court's introduction after the oral hearing, as any such response should have been made during the hearing itself.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf and a proposed preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU. The underlying dispute involved Seoul Viosys's infringement action against the expert companies concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, which the Local Division had revoked following a counterclaim for invalidity and ordered Viosys to pay the costs. The Court of Appeal addressed fundamental questions about the scope of the UPC's ability to refer matters to the CJEU, holding that while the UPC may request interpretation of EU law, it cannot request interpretation of the UPCA itself or its Rules of Procedure.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for the release of security for procedural costs in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno B.V. had been ordered on 26 August 2024 to provide €25,000 in security for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA, which it duly provided. Following the adjudication of the appeal on 26 June 2025 and the parties' subsequent settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security with the consent of Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH's bank account.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
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
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application by RiVOLUTiON GmbH for suspension of enforcement (aufschiebende Wirkung) of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Munich Local Division on August 6, 2025, in favor of Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC regarding EP 2 515 768. The Munich Local Division had ordered Rivolution to cease offering, marketing, or using surgical instruments incorporating the features of claim 1 of the patent in Germany, with a coercive penalty for non-compliance, and ordered Rivolution to pay EUR 64,000 in preliminary costs to Cilag. Rivolution appealed the decision, whose reasoning had not yet been issued, and sought suspension of its effectiveness pending the appeal.
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.Respondent
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.
Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for confidentiality in a patent infringement dispute over EP 2 643 717. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Chainzone, as intervener supporting Strabag, could obtain restrictions on the use and disclosure of Fraunhofer measurement reports that had already been submitted to the Court of First Instance without any prior confidentiality request. The Court held that an application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to or use of information and evidence must be made at the time of filing the document, and a first-time request in appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted at first instance is inadmissible.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had filed his application on 27 March 2025, well after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the transitional period is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception, and that a clerical error by the applicant's paralegal department did not justify reinstating his right to registration.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Décision de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE (DEMANDERESSE DANS LA PROCEDURE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE I
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted a CEIPI certificate dated 8 July 2022, which predated the Administrative Committee's November 2023 accreditation decision under Rule 1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that there is no de facto continuity between an accredited course under Rule 1 and a course referenced in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, and therefore the applicant did not possess a valid certificate at the time of filing.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed on 18 April 2025, outside the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement on 1 June 2023, as required by Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The applicant argued that Rule 12.1 only defines when a qualification is deemed appropriate and does not impose a filing deadline. The President upheld the Registrar's decision, confirming that the transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 DECISION de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE DANS LA PROCEDURE D’APPEL APL_2052/2025 ET INTIMEE DANS LA PROCEDU
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 21 February 2025, after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules had expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related personal circumstances did not justify the delayed submission.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
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.