Litigation
11 litigation decisions from The Hague Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
11 cases | Page 1 of 1
Amycel, LLC v.[Appellant] (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellant's principal request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation facilities (English to Polish) during an oral hearing in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350. The appellant, a natural person and the defendant in the first instance proceedings, argued that his limited command of English justified Court-arranged interpretation under Art. 51(2) UPCA. The Court held that the conditions for ordering interpretation were not met, as the appellant was duly represented by a professional representative and had not shown that his personal attendance rendered Court-arranged interpretation appropriate. The Court granted the alternative request, permitting the appellant to engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.
This appeal concerned an order by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application for production of evidence in infringement proceedings relating to EP 2 791 402, a patent concerning UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error of law, manifest error of assessment, or failure to apply the requirements of R. 190 RoP, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al. (Pfizer and BioNTech entities)
This is a case management order from the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively PBNT) concerning European Patent EP2590626, which relates to Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine products. The order addresses procedural matters arising after the interim conference, including the admission of late-filed exhibits, clarification of the scope of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests to be relied upon at the upcoming oral hearing, and the rejection of certain unsolicited submissions.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two GSK divisional patents, EP856 and EP941, against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO opposition division, PBNT applied for a stay of the UPC proceedings. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, postponed its decision on the stay request pending the written grounds of the TBA decision, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of three appeal proceedings and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in the 4G LTE and 5G NR technology field. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of appeals and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. After the parties reached a settlement, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the three appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000).
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) filed by Shenzhen Transsion group companies against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures application in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. Ericsson consented to the withdrawal following a settlement between the parties, and the Court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. v.& Bird
ORDER
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE, and others
This is a procedural order (R.105.5) issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent EP2590626. The order sets the value of the proceedings, addresses the admissibility of late-filed exhibits and submissions, orders the parties to focus their arguments for the oral hearing, and schedules the oral hearing for September 1, 2026.
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.