The Hague (NL) Local Division
75 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., Pfizer B.V., and associated entities (collectively PBNT)
This procedural order in the GSK v. Pfizer case focused on managing the complexity and volume of submissions within the UPC proceedings. The defendants requested limitations on Auxiliary Requests (ARs) and an extension for their rejoinder, citing excessive length and number of ARs from the claimant. The court acknowledged the high volume but did not limit the ARs; instead, it required GSK to provide a detailed tabular overview of its claims to improve judicial clarity. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with the need for expeditious case management.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed complex applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in the GSK v Moderna dispute over vaccine patents. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new product variants (mNEXSPIKE), while simultaneously dismissing Moderna’s objections concerning the timeliness of GSK's submissions. This decision affirms the claimant's right to adapt its case and respond fully to the defendant's arguments, setting a clear procedural path for the ongoing infringement and validity proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
In this procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in a high-stakes biotech dispute between GSK and Moderna. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new vaccine variants like mNEXSPIKE, recognizing the evolving nature of the technology. Simultaneously, the court rejected Moderna’s attempt to exclude crucial supporting arguments and exhibits from the proceedings, affirming the claimant's right to respond fully to the defense.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This UPC decision confirms the closure of a complex dispute between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company following a settlement agreement. Although the core patent issues were resolved outside of court, the Court provided specific rulings on procedural matters, particularly concerning the withdrawal of actions and the reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights how settlements are formally processed within the UPC framework.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
In a procedural case concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted the withdrawal request initiated by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.. The court confirmed that since both parties had reached a settlement, the proceedings could be formally closed without further judicial intervention on merits or costs.
Unnamed Applicant v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a request for access to the case file of an ongoing provisional measures action (UPC_CFI_830/2025). An unnamed applicant, claiming to represent a competitor in the CGM field, sought access to conduct an FTO analysis. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that vague claims of 'specific interest' are insufficient and that procedural integrity must be maintained, especially in fast-tracked proceedings.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in The Hague addressed a dispute over the number of conditional amendments (Auxiliary Requests or ARs) filed by the claimant Maxell against Samsung. Samsung argued that 44 ARs were excessive and requested an extension to respond. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that the complexity was justified by the extensive invalidity attacks raised by Samsung and that the ARs effectively covered a limited set of core features. This ruling confirms the court's discretion in managing complex cases while maintaining procedural efficiency.
Amycel LLC v.Spyra
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Defendant (Spyra) to set aside a prior default judgment in an infringement action against Amycel LLC. The Court dismissed the R.356 application, finding that the procedural requirements for setting aside the default were not met due to earlier notices provided to the Defendant. Crucially, the Court also rectified the original Default-Decision, replacing the reference to Rule 356 with clear instructions on how and when an appeal could be lodged at the Court of Appeal.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and Moderna et al., the UPC Court of First Instance decided to split the combined counterclaim for revocation. The court found that combining the two counterclaims, one for each patent (EP4066856 and EP4226941), was procedurally impractical given the different opposition stages before the EPO. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation to ensure procedural fairness and proper fee assessment.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an infringement action initiated by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating a likely settlement outside of court. Crucially, the Court also addressed procedural matters, granting confidentiality to the sensitive annexes and ordering a significant partial reimbursement of the claimant's legal costs.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
In this procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance granted the withdrawal of an infringement action brought by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, indicating that the dispute was resolved outside of court. Additionally, the court addressed requests for confidentiality regarding settlement details and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to the Claimant.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This procedural order in the UPC case between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company addresses key logistical and financial aspects of a complex infringement and revocation dispute. The Court successfully set the monetary value of the claims at €12 million, streamlining the financial scope for both parties. Additionally, the court granted confidentiality measures requested by Disney, allowing the litigation to proceed under agreed-upon privacy terms.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
In this UPC case concerning the infringement of a patent covering Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, Avient Protective Materials B.V. sought an alternative method of service against its Chinese defendants. After months of unsuccessful attempts via The Hague Service Convention (HSC), the Court ruled in favor of the Claimant. The court authorized service by German bailiff at a trade fair in Düsseldorf, ensuring that the legal proceedings could proceed without delay or risk of default judgment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning retail merchandising technology, the UPC found that HL Display AB's patent covering systems for securing shelf accessories was validly infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s products. While granting the infringement claim and ordering substantial damages, the court also issued a key procedural holding: counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement are inadmissible if the claimant has not previously asserted the patent against that specific product. This decision reinforces strict adherence to assertion requirements within UPC proceedings.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. successfully obtained an ex parte order from the UPC Local Division in The Hague to preserve evidence against Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. This urgent measure was sought during a trade fair, targeting the alleged infringing seed counting machine (SD-14010). The court ruled that the applicant met all necessary criteria under UPC rules for interim measures, allowing for the seizure and detailed examination of the device to confirm patent infringement. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant swift provisional relief when evidence preservation is critical before a main action commences.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
This procedural decision in UPC case UPC_CFI_479/2025 confirms the readiness for enforcement following a previous provisional measures ruling. The claimants, Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V., have secured the necessary security deposits to proceed with enforcing injunctions, information orders, penalty sums, and costs against multiple defendants. The court authorized electronic service of the final order, moving the case closer to a definitive enforcement phase.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the infringement of its washing machine cabinet patent (EP3522755B1). Although the court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief requested by Washtower, it issued a significant interim award for legal costs totaling EUR 62,600. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings can yield financial benefits even when primary injunctive or declaratory relief is not immediately granted.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the patent EP3522755B1 covering ergonomic washing machine cabinets. The court issued an order on September 11, 2025, focusing primarily on costs and interim relief. Although the application for preliminary measures was partially addressed, the ruling established a significant cost award of EUR 62,600 against Defendants 2-5.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France
In this UPC case, City Glass sued Maars for infringing its patent covering a unique self-locking glazing system. The Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding that the alleged use of Horizon Products did not constitute infringement under EP 1651838. Crucially, the court also rejected Maars' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. This decision highlights the high bar for proving both infringement and invalidity in UPC proceedings.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC sought provisional measures against German distributor RiVOLUTiON GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of their staple cartridge patent EP3689262. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, meaning no immediate injunction was granted. However, the court concurrently confirmed a preliminary confidentiality order and established a confidentiality club, setting procedural groundwork for future litigation.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In this procedural order, HL Display AB opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to deposit physical objects related to the infringement case EP2432351. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application. The court found that BSRP failed to provide a sufficient justification for filing these exhibits late, leading to the rejection of their procedural motion.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a procedural order concerning the deposit of physical objects, HL Display AB successfully opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to submit exhibits related to its products. The UPC Court of First Instance rejected the application because the defendant failed to provide a timely and adequate explanation for the late filing of these crucial items. This decision underscores the court's strict adherence to procedural deadlines and requirements in managing evidence during infringement actions.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
In a procedural order concerning an infringement claim, Adeia Guides Inc. successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for a deadline extension. The request was made due to late-filed exhibits in the ongoing litigation against various Disney entities. This ruling ensures that both parties have adequate time to respond to complex legal filings in this high-stakes patent dispute.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna addressed extensive jurisdictional challenges raised by the large group of Moderna entities. Moderna argued that several subsidiaries lacked sufficient domicile or connection to the UPC territory for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court rejected these objections, confirming its competence based on established connectivity principles (e.g., co-defendants in the same country). This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings concerning Spikevax.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
HL Display AB initiated an infringement action against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. concerning patent EP2432351. This procedural order sets the stage for the main trial by rescheduling the oral hearing to August 22, 2025, and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both sides. The parties agreed on all procedural points, including the appointment of a technical judge.
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.