Litigation Decisions
364 cases | Page 3 of 13
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (Applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, facts, legal arguments, reasoning, or decision available for analysis.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content. No facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the available text.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
This is an appeal from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the infringement of European Patent EP 2 145 848 relating to false twist texturizing machinery. Oerlikon sued Bhagat for exhibiting an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance's provisional damages award of €15,000 for reputational harm, finding the evidence insufficient, but otherwise upheld the finding of infringement and the cost allocation against Bhagat.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Mannheim, which had largely upheld bellissa's infringement claim regarding EP 2 223 589 and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim. The court found that Windhager failed to demonstrate that the first instance decision contained obvious errors or that its interest in staying enforcement outweighed bellissa's interest in preventing patent infringement. The pending new revocation action before the Central Chamber Milan was deemed irrelevant at this stage.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
This appeal concerned an Application for provisional measures brought by Barco N.V. against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 732 827 relating to methods and systems for making functional devices available to meeting participants. The Local Division held it was competent but dismissed the Application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the dismissal but reduced the interim costs award to €66,000 (half the applicable ceiling) for both the Court of First Instance and appeal proceedings.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
Barco N.V., proprietor of European patent EP 3 732 827 concerning methods and systems for making functional devices available to meeting participants, sought provisional measures against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement by Yealink's MeetingBar Products, WPP30, and RoomCast devices. The Local Division held it was competent but dismissed the application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the Local Division's findings but reduced the interim costs award to €66,000 for both the first instance and appeal proceedings, rejecting the cross-appeal.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
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 rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for lowering LDL cholesterol. The Court of First Instance (Munich central division) had revoked the patent, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision, finding that the claimed invention involves an inventive step and rejecting the respondents' requests to revoke the patent in its entirety.
Amgen Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis entities
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for therapeutic use. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's revocation decision, holding that the patent claims were valid. The court found that the invention involved an inventive step, as the skilled person starting from the prior art (Lagace) would not have developed antibodies targeting PCSK9 as a next step at the priority date, and ordered the respondents to pay Amgen's costs.
Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 and 27/2025), Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Appellant in 530/2024, 532/2024, 533/2024 and 27/2025 and Respondent in 464/2024, 457/2024, 458/2024 and 21/2025) v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno sought suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP to prevent enforcement of a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) issued by the Central Division (Paris Seat) ordering it to pay €350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft following a default judgment dismissing Suinno's infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal held that while the application was admissible, Suinno failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it had not shown the cost decision was manifestly erroneous. The application for suspensive effect was rejected.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a light emitting diode (LED) of the flip-chip type. The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's finding that the patent was invalid due to added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) because claim 1, directed to an LED with only a single mesa, extended beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
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 rejected Vivo's request under R. 9.3 RoP to stay the first instance proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing its Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation. Vivo had sought the stay pending the outcome of its preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over Sun Patent Trust's active FRAND rate determination claim and pending the appeal concerning the confidentiality order. The Court held that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a preliminary objection decision, and that as a general rule, it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays of proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Oerlikon's request for security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. The Court rejected the request to include first instance costs (already awarded by the Milan Local Division) in the security, but ordered Bhagat to provide a security of €19,000 for appeal costs within 10 days of notification, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-authorized bank.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_699/2025) concerning penalty payments for non-compliance with orders from a final decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023). The Court of Appeal provided extensive guidance on the system of penalties under Rules 354.3 and 354.4 RoP, and ruled that the appeal was only partly successful, setting aside order 1 and the cost decision while maintaining orders 2 and 3 in slightly limited form. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs in both instances.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
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.