Litigation
75 litigation decisions from Paris (FR) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
75 cases | Page 1 of 3
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produkcie S.A., Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Bosch defendants for revision of an earlier order rejecting their preliminary objections to the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court addressed the two conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court for establishing jurisdiction over multiple defendants, holding that the commercial link requirement applies between all defendants collectively and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition refers to infringement of the same patent rather than identity of the infringing products. The panel rejected the revision request, confirmed the Paris Local Division's jurisdiction, and granted leave to appeal.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France, Viatris Santé
Gowling WLG, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, requested access to the case file of proceedings between Merz and Viatris (UPC_CFI_697/2025) concerning EP2377536 and its SPC. The Paris Local Division granted limited access, restricting disclosure to documents and submissions specifically relating to the 'unreasonable delay' point of law under Rule 211.4 RoP, which was the sole issue decided in the final order of 21 November 2025.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Productie S.A. and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against six entities of the Bosch group concerning European Patent EP 4144599 B1. Five Bosch defendants (later joined by the sixth) filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 challenging the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division and the language of proceedings, arguing that the conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court were not met. The judge-rapporteur joined the two preliminary objections and rejected them, holding that the requirement that the action concern the 'same infringement' refers to the violation of the same patent by all defendants and does not require identity of the products alleged to infringe across all defendants.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Unified Patent Court decision.
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)
This case concerns a request for a default decision in an ongoing patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_530/2025) before the Local Division Paris. Adobe sought a default decision against KEEEX for failing to provide a bank guarantee for costs within the deadline set by an order of December 19, 2025. The court rejected Adobe's request, finding that KEEEX had acted diligently by providing proof of blocked funds within the deadline and subsequently furnishing the required bank guarantee documents shortly after receiving clarifications from the judge-rapporteur.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against the Sophia Genetics group, alleging infringement of four European patents relating to liquid biopsy technology by the 'MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHiA DDM' test. The Court rejected the application, finding that EP'073 contained added matter over its original PCT application, and that Guardant Health failed to demonstrate infringement of EP'066 and EP'986 with a sufficient degree of certainty. Guardant Health was ordered to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros in interim costs.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations, a French company specializing in anti-theft systems for utility vehicles, brought an infringement action against Mul-T-Lock France concerning its MVP 1000 padlock, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 153 830 (a unitary patent). Mul-T-Lock counterclaimed for nullity. The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of claims 1 and 6 as modified, granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and ordered information disclosure, while rejecting claims relating to the Swiss part of the patent.
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)
KEEEX SAS filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 949 070 against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI entities, TruePic, JDFP, and C2PA. The defendants raised preliminary objections challenging the international jurisdiction of the UPC and, in the case of TruePic, the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that the claimant had sufficiently established the availability of the disputed digital tools on French territory and that UPC jurisdiction extended to non-UPC member states based on the ECJ's BSH ruling.
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Unified Patent Court decision.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against three Vivo entities concerning European patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over the FRAND-related claims and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and deferred the question of admissibility of the FRAND terms claim (A.II) to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
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 Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because Sun Patent's request for a FRAND determination constituted a standalone claim outside the scope of Article 32 UPCA, and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and ruling that the admissibility of the FRAND-related claim (A.II) under Article 32.1 UPCA would be addressed in the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN), a French company specializing in plastic connection and drainage systems, sued four entities of the First group for infringement of European patent EP3272938 concerning its Connecto®invisible channel grid. RPN alleged that the defendants' Ghost channel grid covers and Pratiko channel gutters infringed claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the patent, both literally and by equivalence. The Local Division of Paris rejected all of RPN's infringement claims, finding that the alleged equivalent function did not arise from the patent's characteristics and was not easily deducible by a person skilled in the art, and ordered RPN to bear all costs and pay a provisional sum of 70,000 euros to the defendants.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This is a preliminary order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a Preliminary Objection arguing that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over the case because Sun Patent Trust requested a ruling on a FRAND issue as a main claim rather than as a defence. The court denied Vivo's request to postpone the filing of its Statement of Defence, finding no exceptional circumstances to derogate from procedural efficiency.
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 Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This procedural order concerns an application for provisional measures filed by Merz entities against Viatris Santé regarding European Patent EP2377536 and its French Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) FR13C0033. Merz sought an order requiring Viatris to consolidate its 473-page Objection into a shorter document, arguing the disparity in submission lengths would deprive them of an equal opportunity to defend their case. The judge rapporteur found the 470-page objection inappropriate in the context of provisional measures and ordered Viatris to file a 70-page summary, with Merz permitted a 40-page reply.
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, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS against eight defendants, including Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., and others, regarding European Patent EP2949070. The order addresses requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, aligning the starting date for all defendants' deadlines to September 4, 2025, and granting an exceptional 4-week extension. The defendants were ordered to file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns a dispute over the starting point of time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD) in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3407524. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, when the final confidentiality order was issued, but granted a three-week extension to account for the period during which Vivo voluntarily postponed access to the unredacted file at Sun Patent Trust's request. Vivo was ordered to file any PO by September 28, 2025, and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_361/2025) involving European Patent EP3852468 owned by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities. The court addressed Vivo's request for clarification regarding the starting point of the time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD), following a contested confidentiality regime order. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, but granted a limited three-week extension, requiring Vivo to file any PO by September 28, 2025 and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
N.J Diffusion SARL, a French company and holder of European patent EP 2 404 516 relating to wigs and hairpieces, brought an infringement action against German competitor Gisela Mayer GmbH before the Local Division of Paris. N.J Diffusion alleged both literal and equivalent infringement of claims 1-4 and 7-9 of the patent, seeking 300,000 euros in provisional damages. The court rejected all of N.J Diffusion's infringement claims, finding no literal or equivalent infringement, and ordered N.J Diffusion to bear all costs, with Gisela Mayer's cost claim fixed at 50,000 euros to be added to N.J Diffusion's insolvency estate following its judicial reorganization.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU sought joinder of its parallel infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN, transfer of the defendants' counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division Paris (already seized by VEOLIA PROPRETE's revocation action), and a stay of the infringement proceedings. The panel ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, but rejected the request for a stay of the infringement proceedings at this stage.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Paris concerning patent EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU had filed infringement actions against MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the alleged infringing incinerator) and VALINEA ENERGIE (exploiter of the incinerator), while VEOLIA PROPRETE had filed a revocation action before the Central Division Paris. The court ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, and rejected TIRU's request for a stay of the infringement proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities regarding European Patent EP3852468. Sun Patent Trust filed applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to classify certain parts of its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential or highly confidential. The court granted the application in part, classifying specific information as confidential (accessible to Defendants' representatives, legal team, and named employees who signed NDAs) and highly confidential (restricted to the Defendants' representative, his legal team, and three named VIVO employees).
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524 before the Paris Local Division. Concurrently, Sun Patent Trust sought to classify certain information in its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential and highly confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The court issued a procedural order defining the scope of confidentiality protection, restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific named representatives, legal teams, and limited employees of the Vivo defendants.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action (ACT_39091/2024) regarding European Patent EP2404516 initiated by N.J Diffusion SARL against Gisela Mayer GmbH. After judicial reorganization proceedings were opened against N.J Diffusion on June 5, 2025, Gisela Mayer sought a security for costs guarantee of €50,000 under Rule 158 RoP and a postponement of the oral hearing. The panel admitted the voluntary intervention of the judicial administrator and judicial agent, but declared the guarantee request inadmissible, holding that granting such a guarantee to one creditor of a debtor in judicial reorganization would violate the principle of equality of creditors under French collective proceedings law.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, Warmcook
Hurom Co., Ltd, a Korean kitchen appliance manufacturer, brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against NUC Electronics Co., NUC Electronics Europe, and Warmcook concerning European Patent EP 3 155 936 relating to juicers. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, alleging added matter (Article 123(2) EPC) and lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The Court revoked the Dutch, French, German, and Italian parts of the patent as amended, dismissed all infringement claims, and ordered Hurom to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC and Others
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and European automotive dealers/distributors, based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. Following a settlement reached between the parties, ArcelorMittal applied on 7 April 2025 to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (6,600 euros out of 11,000 euros paid).
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd, a Korean LED chip manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 3 404 726 relating to ultraviolet light-emitting devices, brought an infringement action against Laser Components SAS before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. The court found that Laser Components' UVC LED chips (PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35, and PKD-H02-F35) infringed claims 1 and 18 of the patent, and granted injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure orders, while reserving the question of damages.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a third-party request for access to case files. LIFE365, an Italian company involved in a parallel infringement and revocation proceeding in Italy regarding the same European patents (EP'230 and EP'669), sought access to the file of the UPC proceedings between HP and LAMA France. The court granted partial access, allowing LIFE365 to view only the pleadings related to the validity discussion (in redacted form where necessary), while denying access to documents concerning the infringement discussion, including the technical report.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. – Access Request in Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France (UPC_CFI_358/2023)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning a third-party access request by LIFE365 (Italian companies) to the case file in an infringement action between Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) and LAMA France regarding European patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. LIFE365 sought access to use arguments and evidence from the UPC proceedings in parallel Italian proceedings before the Court of Genoa. The Judge-Rapporteur granted partial access limited to pleadings concerning validity discussions, while rejecting access to infringement-related documents including the technical report.
VALINEA ENERGIE v.TIRU
VALINEA ENERGIE sought retraction and, subsidiarily, revision of an ex parte order dated 23 December 2024 that authorized evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) in favor of TIRU, the holder of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation. The court rejected all of VALINEA's arguments, finding no breach of the duty of loyalty by TIRU, that the ex parte procedure was justified, that the request was not untimely, and that the security deposit of 10,000 euros was appropriate.
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.