Litigation
10 litigation decisions from Paris Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
10 cases | Page 1 of 1
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. relating to a juice extraction module for a juicer. The Local Division had revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of the patent's claims as amended and dismissed all of Hurom's infringement claims against NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK. The Court of Appeal dismissed Hurom's appeal against the revocation as unfounded (for the New Main Request) and inadmissible (for the New Auxiliary Requests), and dismissed its appeal against the dismissal of infringement claims as unfounded. The cross-appeal by NUC and WARMCOOK was partly dismissed as inadmissible and partly as unfounded, with Hurom ordered to pay costs including an interim award of €100,000.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524, and the Vivo defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the parties reached a settlement agreement, both sides filed withdrawal applications pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure on 13 August 2026. The Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, closed the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United States v.Groupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.
Orange SA, and other representatives of Bardehle Pagenberg v.HMD Global Oy, Orange SA
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to audio decoding under the MPEG-4 Part 3-AAC standard, sued HMD Global Oy for patent infringement regarding HMD smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or higher. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, an exhaustion objection, and a FRAND defence, and later requested that the counterclaim for revocation be made conditional on a finding of infringement. The Paris Local Division accepted the conditional counterclaim approach and examined infringement first, ultimately finding that Orange failed to prove infringement because the Claimant's demonstration relied on additional corrective information inconsistent with the technical teaching of the patent.
Bostik, Inc., 53226, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, US v.1-Henkel France, 4-Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
Bostik, Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging, sued multiple Henkel entities for allegedly infringing the patent through their Loctite® Liofol products in several European territories. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division declared the patent invalid in its entirety, finding that claim 1 as granted extended beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter) because it encompassed embodiments with adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm not supported by the original filing. Consequently, Bostik's infringement action was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé in an infringement action brought by the Merz entities before the UPC Paris Local Division regarding French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 (based on EP 2 377 536). Viatris sought primarily a stay and for the court to decline jurisdiction in favor of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, arguing lis pendens under Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and alternatively a stay under Article 30 for related actions. Merz countered that the UPC was first seised and has exclusive jurisdiction over the infringement claim, and that the criteria for related actions under Article 30 were not met.
Sun Patent Trust, Sabine Agé v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This is an order from the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the total value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), schedules oral hearings for 9-11 September 2026, and identifies the main legal points to be argued. The case involves complex issues of claim construction regarding DRX Active Time features, validity challenges based on prior art documents, alleged infringement by 4G+ compatible Vivo devices, and FRAND-related matters including the admissibility of certain claims and anti-trust law defences.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
(2) ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 avenue Michelet, 93400, Sain, (3) ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, 1 Robert-Bosch-Platz, 70839 Gerlingen v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, rue Saint André 93012 Bobigny
In this legal proceeding before Paris Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-22) under reference UPC_EF80DD3DA1, (2) ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 avenue Michelet, 93400, Sain, (3) ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, 1 Robert-Bosch-Platz, 70839 Gerlingen appeared in dispute with VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, rue Saint André 93012 Bobigny concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 AVENUE MICHELET, 93400, SAINT-OU, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT-BOSCH-PLATZ 1, 70839 GERLINGEN, GE v.VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Paris Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-15) under reference UPC_111E0AC1FE, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 AVENUE MICHELET, 93400, SAINT-OU, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT-BOSCH-PLATZ 1, 70839 GERLINGEN, GE appeared in dispute with VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.