Litigation Decisions
105 cases | Page 2 of 4
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
Application for a review of the Registrar's decision
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
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.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This case concerns an appeal by Huawei Technologies against a decision of the Local Division Munich regarding an application by Quinn Emanuel for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The underlying infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek had been terminated before Quinn Emanuel's application was filed. The Court of Appeal addressed whether decisions of the Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP can be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and confirmed that the legal remedy against the panel's decision is appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
This decision by the President of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda to remove an opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court that had been filed by Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH in respect of European patent EP 2 581 193. SILIMED argued that Polytech was never entitled to the patent, as confirmed by a final German court decision ordering transfer of all national parts to SILIMED. The Registrar had rejected the application for removal on 10 April 2026, and SILIMED sought review of that decision. The decision sets out the legal framework under Rules 5A and 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure governing applications to remove unauthorised opt-outs.
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.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This appeal concerns a request for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Quinn Emanuel sought access to certain submissions filed in a terminated infringement case between Huawei and MediaTek before the Local Division Munich. The Reporting Judge initially granted the request, subject to redactions, and the second panel of the Local Division confirmed that decision, finding Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, which issued this order addressing procedural matters regarding the appeal.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
Appeal RoP220.2
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
Appeal RoP220.2
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by six Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Local Division Paris confirming its jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage concerning EP 4 144 599. The Court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA — commercial link between defendants and same alleged infringement — were satisfied, as membership in the same group of companies can establish a commercial link and the alleg
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Appeal RoP220.1
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for interim measures in a patent infringement dispute. Occlutech GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 686 relating to an occlusion instrument, appealed an order of the Local Division Düsseldorf dated 31 October 2025 in proceedings against Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing), which market competing occlusion devices called MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD. The appeal addressed issues including the absence of a party at the oral hearing, claim interpretation, and the admissibility of new facts and evidence in appeal proceedings.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
Appeal RoP220.1
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 2 June 2026, addresses multiple legal questions arising from proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174 validated in Germany and the United Kingdom. The headnotes cover issues of claim construction (particularly regarding numerical values and manufacturing tolerances), private prior use under Article 28 UPCA and German law, front-loaded proceedings under Rule 29(c) RoP, international jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA and Brussels I bis, and the exercise of international jurisdiction including the application of comity principles when patents validated outside the UPC territory are at issue.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Appeal RoP220.2
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.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
Appeal RoP220.2
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied for access to the case files of three related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, and UPC_CoA_19/2025) concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. had sued Belkin entities for patent infringement and Belkin had counterclaimed for revocation. Anker sought access to the written submissions and annexes, excluding confidential information, citing a parallel infringement action brought against it by Philips before the Local Division Munich. Philips did not oppose access to the technical arguments not subject to confidentiality orders, and Belkin raised no objections.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 778 423, owned by Grundfos Holding A/S, relating to a centrifugal pump unit, particularly a heating circulation pump unit. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of 8 May 2025 concerning infringement and a counterclaim for invalidity. The Court of Appeal addressed whether submissions concretized on appeal were new, the interpretation of patent claims in light of the prior art, and the relevance of the procedural language for claim construction.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V
Application Rop 223
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.