18 cases · page 1 of 1
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court issued an order under R. 296.3 RoP interpreting the effect of resuming a suspended procedure on procedural time limits. The court ruled that after resumption of a suspended procedure, the ongoing procedural time limits are resumed from the resumption order, taking into account the time limits that had already elapsed before the suspension, rather than starting completely anew. The court set the deadline for the Statement of Defence at October 2, 2026, and established a briefing schedule for the security request side-procedure.
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant IAGON LTD provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 112,000, citing concerns about Iagon's financial position and the enforceability of any cost order in the United Arab Emirates. The court rejected the defendants' request, finding that they had not presented in a sufficiently credible manner that an order for security for costs was appropriate based on either Iagon's financial position or the alleged undue burden of enforcement.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
iCAT Corporation brought a patent infringement action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants filed a preliminary objection under R.19 RoP arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of financial compensation to acts occurring after 11 June 2021. The court dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible, holding that it concerned the scope of relief rather than the court's jurisdiction or competence.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the mutual withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) concerning EP 2 387 862 and the associated counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026), filed by Malikie Innovations Limited against multiple Xiaomi entities. The parties, having agreed to discontinue the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, were granted proportional reimbursement of court fees at 50% each.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation
The Local Division Mannheim of the Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026) concerning European patent EP 2 387 862, as the parties had reached a mutual agreement before the closure of the written procedure. The court ordered a proportional reimbursement of court fees, granting 50% reimbursement to each side (15,500 € to the Claimant and 13,250 € to the Defendants). No cost decision was rendered, as all parties declared that one was not requested.
Shinhoo Europe S.r.l. v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is a nullity action before the Central Division (Munich section) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423. The plaintiff, Shinhoo Europe S.r.l., filed the nullity action on 3 September 2025 against Grundfos Holding A/S. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed on a cost settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the defendant to pay EUR 20,000.00 to
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw all proceedings before the closure of the written procedure and did not request a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawals and ordered 50% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant, Defendant 2), and Defendant 1) in accordance with the applicable Rules of Procedure.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., 5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu - 13595 - Seongnam-si, v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology against several ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH regarding EP 3 849 157, along with two counterclaims for revocation filed by ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer GmbH. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and both counterclaims for revocation without requesting a cost decision. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each party that had paid them.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics GmbH, and Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP2047617, owned by IMPRENDITORE PTY LIMITED, brought by Qord IP Protection LLC against SmartThings, Inc. and three Samsung entities. The parties agreed that Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) would voluntarily appear and be represented by Dr. Ebersohl, subject to alignment of the deadlines for the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur confirmed the agreed alignment of deadlines to 26 October 2026 for all defendants.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V., Dr. R. Raggers (AOMB)
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by CJ CheilJedang Corporation regarding European Patent EP3508580 against multiple defendants, including Eppen Netherlands B.V., three Chinese biotech companies, and Oostvogels Logistics B.V. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence until November 2026 and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's test results on previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and also addressed the separate question of access to seized technical documentation, suggesting a two-step process involving an independent technical expert or bailiff.
SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany v.Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_5A90B0CDA0, SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany appeared in dispute with Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Rectification order from the UPC Local Division of Milan concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking correction of a material error in a prior decision dated 26.5.2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023 later withdrawn on 26.11.2024. The court found the rectification request admissible and ordered deletion of the incorrect sentence.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.Respondent
This is a procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning patent infringement action UPC_CFI_1963/2025 (with related case UPC_CFI_1247/2026). Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage, holder of EP4144599, sought to limit its infringement claims against six Bosch group entities by excluding certain APX-series products, withdrawing claims against Belgian and German territories, and withdrawing all claims against Defendant 5 (BOSCH PRODUKTIE). The judge-rapporteur authorized the
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
Daejeon 305-350, South Korea, Attorneys at Law Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Lea Prehn, Dr. Lisa P v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC., 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, C
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_C3ABF2C8EE, Daejeon 305-350, South Korea, Attorneys at Law Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Lea Prehn, Dr. Lisa P appeared in dispute with Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC., 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, C concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
KEEEX SAS v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Paris concerning a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by KEEEX SAS against an earlier order of June 25, 2026. The panel rejected all revision requests from both KEEEX and ADOBE, confirming the earlier order that had rejected KEEEX's request for further patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP, declared the addition of new Truepic products as an inadmissible change of claim, and excluded certain late-filed elements from sections V and VI of KE
UMICORE N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V., RECAT GmbH
This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by the defendants (collectively 'Elemental') in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4087952 owned by Umicore. The Court classified certain technical information regarding the defendants' process as confidential, but expanded the circle of persons within Umicore permitted to access it, including technical experts, given prior exchange under a wider NDA. The Court further ordered that Umicore's deadlines under Rule 29(a) begin running only upon receipt of the full unredacted Statement of Defence and exhibits.
KEEEX SAS v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by defendant ADOBE to modify the security for costs (guarantee for litigation costs) under Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS (holder of EP294070) against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, and C2PA. The Local Division of Paris had previously ordered KEEEX to provide a €200,000 bank guarantee by order of December 19, 2025. ADOBE sought a substantial increase to €1,800,000 (or subsidiarily €1,300,000 or €80
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.