Litigation Decisions
364 cases | Page 5 of 13
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_28067/2025, UPC_CoA_521/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 27 March 2025, relying on a certificate from an Italian patent litigation course completed at Politecnico Milano. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the transitional period is not subject to extension or exception, and that the clerical error and equity arguments did not justify re-establishment of rights.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
Hanshow Germany GmbH filed a nullity action against EP 3 883 277 before the Central Division (Paris) of the Unified Patent Court, which it subsequently withdrew. After the Central Division ordered Hanshow to bear the court costs, Hanshow appealed that cost decision. Before the Court of Appeal, Hanshow then withdrew its appeal and requested 60% reimbursement of its procedural costs under Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, to which VusionGroup consented. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the 60% reimbursement.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (Petition for Review APL_15506/2025)
The applicant sought entry on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a CEIPI diploma in 'Patent Litigation in Europe' obtained in July 2022. The Registrar rejected the application as filed out of time, and the applicant petitioned for review, arguing there was 'de facto continuity' between the unaccredited course under Rule 12 EPLC Rules and the later-accredited course under Rule 1. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the petition, holding that no such continuity exists and that the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 had expired before the application was filed.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_32076/2025, UPC_CoA_614/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a certificate from Politecnico di Milano. The Registrar rejected the application because it was filed after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, holding that the transitional period governs when the application for registration must be filed, not merely when the qualification was obtained, and that the period is not subject to extension or re-establishment of rights.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This decision concerns cross-appeals filed by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) and LAMA France before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. After the Paris Local Division had found one patent invalid and the other infringed, both parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court of Appeal granted the mutual withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of procedural costs to each party.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_18313/2025 UPC_CoA_347/2025) v.Ex Parte
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision denying his application to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had completed a CEIPI course on patent litigation in 2022 but filed his registration application on 21 February 2025, after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules. 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 circumstances did not justify re-establishment of rights.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
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.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Others
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Philips's application for cost assessment (R. 151 RoP) following a May 30, 2025 cost allocation order (65% to Belkin, 35% to Philips). Philips withdrew the application on the same day it was filed, explaining it was filed by mistake at the Court of Appeal instead of the Local Chamber Munich. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected MAGUIN SAS's appeal against an order of the Paris Local Division that had refused to revoke an ex parte order for evidence preservation and site inspection. The court upheld the principle that evidence preservation measures under Rules 192.3 and 197 RoP do not require the same urgency, certainty of evidence disappearance, or patent validity assessment as provisional measures, and that applicants need not disclose prior art unless special circumstances warrant it.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division of Paris's order rejecting VALINEA's request for revocation of an ex parte evidence preservation and site inspection order concerning European patent EP 3 178 578. The court held that the urgency assessment for evidence preservation differs from that for provisional measures, that the risk of evidence disappearance is assessed by probability rather than certainty, and that patent validity need not be assessed at the evidence preservation stage. VALINEA's appeal was rejected.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided judgment text contains only the digital signatures of the presiding judges and the date of signing (July 12, 2025), with no substantive content regarding the facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome of the case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The provided judgment text contains only digital signatures of the presiding judges (Peter Hendrik Blok and Emmanuel, Lucien, René Gougé) dated 12 July 2025, with no substantive content, facts, arguments, or reasoning available for analysis.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
Network Systems Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes's European patent EP 2 196 231 before the Central Division Paris, which was dismissed with costs awarded against Tandem Diabetes. After Tandem Diabetes appealed, the parties settled the proceedings, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement on 3 June 2025. Tandem Diabetes then applied for reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, which the Court of Appeal granted because the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed the appellant to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Brussels that had dismissed its infringement claims concerning European patent 2 331 036. The court held that the appellant, as the unsuccessful party in the appeal, must bear the reasonable and proportionate costs of the appeal proceedings incurred by OrthoApnea, but declared inadmissible both OrthoApnea's request for a specific cost amount of €2,693.33 and the appellant's request to resume the pending cost procedure at the Local Division Brussels.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre's appeal against a cost determination order of the Local Division Munich. The court held that the general cost determination procedure under R. 150 ff. RoP applies to cost decisions following withdrawal of an application under R. 265 RoP, and that on appeal, review is limited to a marginal check of whether the awarded costs are reasonable and proportionate under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. and managing director v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V. and managing director v.Visibly Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to Easee's appeal against a Hamburg Local Division order requiring Easee to provide EUR 75,000 in security for costs related to a revocation counterclaim in a patent infringement action brought by Visibly Inc. concerning EP 3 918 974. The court found that the first instance order contained a manifest legal error, consistent with its prior ruling in AorticLab vs. Emboline, which established that Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action, nor in response to a counterclaim for revocation. The managing director's application was granted outright, while the Easee companies' application was granted provisionally pending resolution of a competence issue regarding their legal representation following their insolvency.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 concerning a method and system for detecting offside situations, applied for provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. The Local Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs of €56,000 and subsequently dismissed the application for provisional measures. On appeal, Ballinno withdrew its requests for provisional measures, rendering the action devoid of purpose, and the Court of Appeal rejected Ballinno's challenge to the security order, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and set the value of the dispute for appeal at €100,000.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.
Arkyne Technologies appealed a decision of the Hague Local Division that found it had infringed EP 2 137 782 and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Before the written procedure closed, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees paid by Arkyne, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 602 692. The appeal was filed by ILME against an order of the Local Division Munich rejecting ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action brought by PHOENIX CONTACT. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP without a costs order.
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.