102 cases · page 2 of 4
Showing 31–59VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23 mars 2026 (R333 RdP révision d’une ordonnance) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1(b) AJUB relative au lien commercial entre le
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_283/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2026 concerning R. 262.1(b) Request for access to the case file - UPC_CFI_697/2025 APPLICANT Gowling WLG 38 avenue de l'Opera, 75002, Paris, FR Represented by Mari
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A. and BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2026 (R.19 Objection préliminaire) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1.b/ relative à « l’action porte sur la même cont
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-04) under reference UPC-000096, Bostic, Inc. appeared in dispute with Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
KEEEX SAS, v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 04/02/2026 Concernant une demande de décision par défaut (R.158.5 et R. 355.1 RdP) DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS 5 rue de Lissandre 13013 MARSEILLE - FR Représenté par Thibaud
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 UPC_CFI_369/2025 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 16/01/2026 EN-TETE : 1. Le brevet européen devenu unitaire et modifié de manière inconditionnelle, prend effet à la date de d
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/11/2025 concernant R.19 et R.334 (g) RdP DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS (Parties à la procédure au principal - Demandeur) - 5 rue de Lissandre - 13013 - MARSEILLE - FR Repré
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2025-11-21) under reference UPC-000226, Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France appeared in dispute with Viatris Santé concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division concerning European Patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that the Unified Patent Court lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust's main claim sought a declaration that its licence offer was FRAND and, alternatively, a determination of FRAND terms by the court, which Vivo contended falls outside the UPC's competence. Vivo additionally contested the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Rule 19.1(b) RoP. Sun Patent Trust countered that the UPC has jurisdiction over FRAND aspects and that the Paris Local Division is competent to hear the case, requesting dismissal of the preliminary objection.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
« 2. the applicant’s assertions during the grant procedings […] can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date ». Mais en l’occurrence, le déposant a tiré les conséquences de ses déclarations et les a mises en œuvre en amendant sa demande de brevet, afin d’échapper au grief d’absence de nouveauté, ce qui démontre que RPN considérait bien lui-même à cette époque, que les deux parois parallèles du brevet US628 étaient nécessaires pour espacer les
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 13/10/2025 concerning the runtime and Preliminary Objection APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA Sophia Genetics SAS Sophia Genetics SRL Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_697/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Merz Therapeutics GmbH Eckenheimer Landstraße 100 60318 Frankfurt am Main - DE 2) Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC Unit 35/36, 6601 Six Forks Road, 4th Fl
ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 08/09/2025 Concernant la prorogation des délais (R. 9.3 RdP) REQUERANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED (Parties à la procédure au principal - Dé
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/08/2025 concerning R. 9.1 and R. 9.3 (a) RoP APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo Tech GmbH Spe
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/08/2025 concerning R. 9.1 and R. 9.3 (a) RoP APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo Tech GmbH Spe
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
3: «Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim.”) 2- L’admissibilité d’une demande alléguée tardive : En l’espèce, la Cour considère que la demande de contrefaçon par équivalence qui intervient juste après le mémoire en défense n’est pas tardive (au stade du mémoire en réplique), car cette demande ne change pas la nature de la stratégie procédurale du demandeur qui ne fait que l’adapter a
TIRU v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_132/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 22/07/2025 REQUERANT (Demandeur à la procédure au principal) TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté par Cyrille AMAR, cabinet Amar Goussu
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Sabine A
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 Concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Caroline
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/06/2025 REQUERANT – DEFENDEUR AU PRINCIPAL GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 Memmingen DE Représenté par Frédéric PORTAL REPONDANT – DEM
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
This case before the Paris Local Division concerned a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. The court addressed three key issues: the admissibility of amended patent claims (rejecting the defendant's added-matter objection based on alleged intermediate generalization), the procedural framework for objections under Article 34 UPCA regarding the territorial scope of UPC decisions (holding such objections fall outside R.19 RoP), and the claimant's request for infringement remedies in Poland. While the Poland-related claim was admissible following the BSH v Electrolux precedent, the court found it unfounded on the merits due to the claimant's failure to meet its burden of proof regarding specific infringing acts in that territory.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG M
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action on 18 October 2024 before the Paris Local Division against multiple XPENG entities and related automotive distributors based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. On 7 April 2025, following a settlement, ArcelorMittal applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and requested reimbursement of 60% of the procedural fees paid. The defendants confirmed the settlement and requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295 RoP.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 DECISION AU FOND du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/04/2025 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeongg
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) VALINEA ENERGIE rue du Champ du Cerf
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) MAGUIN SAS 2, rue Pierre Semard 0280
Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v.IMC Créations
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/03/2025 REQUERANTS Mul-T-Lock France 4 avenue d’Ouessant, Bât E 91140 - Villebon-Sur-Yvette - FR Représenté par Stanislas Roux-Vailla
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.