The Hague (NL) Local Division
82 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2432351 owned by HL Display AB against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The order addressed several procedural matters including the appointment of a technical judge, use of visual aids, rescheduling of the oral hearing, and setting the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the claim and counterclaim.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. Orbisk counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request) that was not infringed by Orbisk's product, resulting in partial revocation of the patent and an order for Winnow to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns an application by the Moderna claimants under Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure to extend the deadline for filing their Reply to the defence and Statement of Defence in the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court partly rejected the application, granting a limited extension until 24 September 2025 rather than the requested 4 October 2025, taking into account the delayed access to unredacted confidential information due to the R.262A confidentiality proceedings.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Moderna, Inc. et al. v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation & Genevant Sciences GmbH
This is a confidentiality order (R.262A) issued by the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in patent infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191/2025) concerning EP2279254, owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The order, based on an agreement reached between the parties, establishes a confidentiality regime and confidentiality club to protect certain information Moderna wishes to submit regarding the composition and manufacturing process of its Spikevax® and mRESVIA® products.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips RS North America LLC, and Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This is a preliminary order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2437696. The Claimant, Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., filed an R.263 application seeking leave to amend its case to base its claims on the B2 version of the patent instead of the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The court dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, holding that under Article 68 EPC, the B1 version had already been retroactively replaced by the B2 version, and admitted the revised Statement of Claim into the proceedings.
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sinocare Inc.
This order concerns two consolidated provisional measures proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in which Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought interim relief against Menarini and Sinocare regarding the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, alleging infringement of European patents EP3988471 and EP4344633. Menarini filed Rule 9 applications seeking postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, arguing insufficient time for a fair trial. The court dismissed the applications as unfounded, finding no special circumstances warranting postponement, and confirmed the oral hearing date while setting deadlines for the filing of Objections.
Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)
Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in two pending infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) concerning European Patents EP2279254 and EP4241767, both owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The fifteen Moderna entities (Defendants) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review by the entire panel of a case management order dated 23 May 2025 concerning four preliminary objections, or alternatively seeking leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the Claimants be given one week to respond to the application.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This procedural order concerns applications by multiple Moderna entities seeking rectification of a prior Procedural Order dated 23 May 2025 regarding Preliminary Objections filed in two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) involving European patents EP2279254 and EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Moderna argued that the dates of service on Moderna Germany, Moderna Belgium, and Moderna Poland were incorrectly stated in the prior order, which affected the admissibility of their Preliminary Objections. The court found the applications founded, holding that the dates constituted clerical mistakes rectifiable under R.353 RoP, and rectified the order to confirm that the Preliminary Objections filed on 24 April 2025 were admissible for all defendants.
Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. et al.
This procedural order concerns two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against fifteen entities of the Moderna group before the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court, concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's international jurisdiction, local competence, and the validity of the opt-out withdrawal. The judge-rapporteur dismissed most of the preliminary objections, finding the applications inadmissible only with respect to Moderna Belgium, Moderna Germany, and (in part) Moderna Poland, and deferred the long-arm jurisdiction question to the main proceedings.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation & Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited & Other Moderna Entities
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court addresses preliminary objections filed by fifteen Moderna group entities (the defendants) in two infringement actions brought by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The defendants challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local competence of the Hague division, long-arm jurisdiction for acts outside UPCA territory, and (in case 191/25) the validity of the opt-out withdrawal. The judge-rapporteur dismissed the preliminary objections on all substantive grounds, declared certain applications inadmissible for specific defendants, and deferred the long-arm jurisdiction question to the main proceedings.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) issued an order in two parallel infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against fifteen Moderna group entities concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The court rejected Moderna's request to extend the deadline for filing Preliminary Objections and set a unified deadline of 8 July 2025 for all defendants to file their Statements of Defense, finding that the Moderna entities belong to the same corporate group and likely already had knowledge of the claims.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed by multiple Moderna entities (defendants in the main infringement proceedings) seeking extensions of deadlines to file preliminary objections and statements of defense in two UPC infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The court rejected the request to extend the preliminary objection deadline and set a unified deadline of 8 July 2025 for all defendants to file their Statements of Defense, balancing the UPC's objective of expeditious proceedings with the practical difficulties arising from service on fifteen co-defendants across multiple jurisdictions.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Defendant's application for re-establishment of rights (R.320 RoP) after his representative missed the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action concerning EP1993350. The court found that although the representative's illness on 24-27 February 2025 was accepted as a cause outside his control, he had not taken all due care to ensure the deadline would be met, given his prior experience with UPC proceedings, the explicit warning about default judgment, and evidence that he was able to submit a brief to the EPO on 27 February 2025. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP after his representative filed the Statement of Defence nine days late due to claimed illness. The court found that the representative, an experienced patent attorney familiar with UPC proceedings, failed to take all due care to ensure deadlines would be met in the event of his incapacity. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action concerning EP1993350.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Doytec Automation Ltd.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence against Doytec Automation Ltd. before the Local Division in The Hague. DDT alleged that Doytec was exhibiting a seed counting machine (C-1012) at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 trade fair in the Netherlands that reproduced the teachings of claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The court granted the order, finding that DDT had established a credible, reasonably available case of infringement and met the requirements for an ex-parte evidence preservation order.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. filed an ex parte application to preserve evidence and inspect premises of P.T.S. Machinery B.V. based on alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 171 996. After the Court partly granted the application and an expert conducted an inspection, Mammoet sought to extend access to the expert's Written Report and its Attachments to four named employees. The Court granted the request, finding no significant risk of trade secret disclosure and noting the Defendant's non-objection.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation concerning European Patent EP4070727 were withdrawn by all parties before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague. All parties consented to the withdrawal and indicated no cost decision was requested. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
This case before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerned European Patent EP4070727 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims, including the infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, granted Dexcom's request for reimbursement of 20% of court fees, and set the value of the actions at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP4070727 before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. All parties subsequently requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Amycel LLC (proprietor of EP1993350) against an unnamed defendant located in Poland. The court addressed Amycel's application regarding the service of the Statement of Claim on the defendant, who had refused to accept delivery through multiple channels. The court ruled that the alternative methods of service employed by Amycel constituted good service under R. 275.2 RoP, deemed the Statement of Claim served on 25 November 2024, and set a three-month period for the defendant to file a Statement of Defense.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Maars Holding B.V. and Others v.City Glass and Glazing Private Limited
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Maars entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant (City Glass and Glazing Private Limited) to provide security for legal costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) granted the application in part, ordering City Glass to provide security of EUR 19,000 by deposit on the UPC account by 29 January 2025, while dismissing the request for leave for interim appeal.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents in infringement proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur found a prima facie case of infringement but held that the request was too broad in certain respects. The court partially granted the request, ordering Orbisk to produce specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights, while protecting confidentiality interests.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 concerning a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents related to its allegedly infringing Orbi food waste monitoring system. The Local Division The Hague partially granted the request, finding a prima facie case of infringement but limiting the order to specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns Dexcom's request to amend its counter claim for revocation in proceedings involving EP 4 070 727 B1. After Abbott withdrew part of its infringement claim regarding the Dexcom G7-System with a G7-Receiver, Dexcom sought to add a declaration of non-infringement for that product combination. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of the Court of First Instance in The Hague concerning a counter claim for revocation related to European Patent EP 4 070 727 B1. Dexcom sought leave to amend their counter claim to add a declaration of non-infringement regarding the Dexcom G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's withdrawal of that portion of its infringement claim. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
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.