8 cases · page 1 of 1
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an application by Rematec under R. 333 RoP seeking review of a judge-rapporteur's order that dismissed Rematec's request to have its Application for a cost decision, originally filed with the Court of Appeal, referred to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division) while preserving the original filing date. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but unfounded, ruling that cost decision proceedings must be initiated before the Court of First Instance even when they concern costs of appeal proceedings, and dismissed the application.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
IPG Laser appealed a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that had dismissed its counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 951 625 and found it liable for direct infringement. Shortly after filing the appeal, IPG Laser applied to withdraw it, requesting full or partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This order concerns an application by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, the appellant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 548 648, seeking referral of its cost decision application from the Court of Appeal to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction over cost decision applications, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 150 et seq. RoP, and dismissed Rematec's application for referral.
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., and TCL Belgium SA
Corning Incorporated sued four entities of the TCL Technology Group before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 3 296 274, which covers methods for producing alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glass sheets used in LCD-TVs. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that Defendants 1 to 3 infringed the patent through the importation and sale of LCD-TVs incorporating glass sheets made by the patented process, granted injunctive relief and ancillary measures, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered a cost-split reflecting partial success on both sides.
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB – Request for Access (UPC_CFI_1026/2026) v.Ex Parte
This decision concerns a request filed by BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in connection with patent infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_661/2026) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422, EP 2 506 479, and EP 3 397 009. After the judge-rapporteur informed Ericsson that it could not expect a production order regarding a third-party licence agreement without properly informing its licensee, Ericsson updated its licensees on the confidentiality regime, and the Applicant withdrew its request. The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and declined to award costs.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (UPC_CoA_0916/2025)
Hurom Co., Ltd. filed an appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division concerning alleged infringement of EP 2 028 981 by NUC Electronics in Poland, Spain, and the UK. Following a related Court of Appeal decision in parallel cases, Hurom applied to withdraw the appeal and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Hurom to bear NUC's costs in both instances, and granted a 50% reimbursement of appeal court fees plus reimbursement of overpaid fees.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for withdrawal of an action for provisional measures. InterDigital, which had obtained ex parte preliminary measures against Amazon from the Mannheim Local Division, applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures with Amazon's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, finding no need for a cost decision since both parties agreed not to seek reimbursement of costs.
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.