Litigation Decisions
105 cases | Page 3 of 4
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect filed by Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji against an order of The Hague Local Division requiring them to produce UD fabric samples and a company introduction video under Rule 190 RoP. The appellants argued that compliance within the two-week deadline was impossible due to Chinese military-grade export control regulations requiring 1-2 months to obtain permits. The Court extended the compliance deadline to 15 July 2026 while rejecting the appellants' other arguments regarding procedural violations and manifest errors.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Appeal RoP220.1
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application RoP262A
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.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7C0E224273, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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
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
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in appeal case UPC-CoA-50/2026 concerning patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants (several Robert Bosch entities) appealed an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction and language of procedure in an infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage. The Court of Appeal ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing scheduled for May 26, 2026 would
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This order concerns Huawei's application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich regarding inspection of case file documents. Quinn Emanuel had sought access to pleadings filed in terminated infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek, which the Rapporteur initially granted subject to redaction. After Huawei challenged this, the Local Division confirmed the Rapporteur's amended decision and found Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded, without allowing appeal. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned whether the UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringements of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held that the request was without foundation because the fundamental legal question had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's earlier order of
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
Lepu 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
Appeal RoP220.2
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
Generic Order
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
Generic Order
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
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.
Application For Costs
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Appeal RoP220.1
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.
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.