Litigation Decisions
20 cases | Page 1 of 1
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against multiple Amazon entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 4 024 777. Both parties subsequently withdrew their respective claims—the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation—and agreed that each party would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and set the overall value of the dispute at 5 Mio. EUR.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed the interpretation of Rule 296.3 RoP regarding how procedural time limits resume after a stay of proceedings is lifted. The parties had jointly requested a stay for settlement negotiations, which was granted from 29 May 2026 to 1 September 2026. When negotiations failed, the defendants argued that time limits should start completely fresh, while the plaintiff argued they should resume accounting for time already elapsed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's interpretation, holding that R. 296.3 RoP provides for a suspension (not interruption) of time limits, meaning they resume from the date the stay ends while accounting for the time already elapsed before the suspension.
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant Iagon provide security for costs 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 the defendants had not sufficiently credibly demonstrated that Iagon's financial position or the enforceability of a cost order in the UAE justified ordering security for costs.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
This is a Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division Mannheim case concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1, in which iCAT Corporation (the Claimant) brought an action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH (the Defendants). The Defendants filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of recoverable damages to five years prior to the date the action was brought. The Court, presided over by judge-rapporteur Thomas Adocker, dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible because it did not concern the Court's jurisdiction, competence, or the language of the proceedings as required by Rule 19.1 RoP.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
This is a decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 387 862. The claimant Malikie Innovations Limited had filed an infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities, and the defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw their respective actions and sought proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
This is a decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 387 862. The claimant Malikie Innovations Limited had filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities, and the defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw their respective actions and sought proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
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 proceedings and reimbursement of court fees in a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157. All parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation before the closure of the written procedure, and no cost decision was requested. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and the respective counterclaimants.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation regarding EP 3 849 157. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the Claimant and the two Defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The claimant Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology had filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 849 157 against multiple ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc. & Samsung Electronics
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2047617. Following an agreement between the parties, the judge-rapporteur confirmed the alignment of deadlines for all defendants to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation by 26 October 2026. The order also confirmed that Dr. Ebersohl would represent Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) in addition to the Samsung defendants.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning a request for revision under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure. KEEEX SAS, holder of European patent EP2949070, sought partial revision of a June 25, 2026 order that had rejected its request for further patent modification under R.30.2, declared the addition of new Truepic products as an inadmissible change of claim under R.263, and excluded certain sections of its June 5, 2026 brief as late-filed under R.9.2. The panel rejected both KEEEX's and ADOBE's revision requests, finding that the original order correctly applied UPC jurisprudence on subsequent patent modifications and procedural admissibility.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3508580, owned by CJ CheilJedang Corporation. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's own testing of 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 requested parties' availabilities in August for a potential case management hearing on access to seized technical documentation.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action for European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute centered on whether SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or micro enterprise (SME), with the parties disagreeing over the relevance of an Investment Agreement. SYPOX withdrew the unredacted version of the Investment Agreement and relied only on the redacted version, and the court dismissed Topsoe's requests for access to the unredacted document.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris addressed Adobe's request to modify the security for costs previously ordered against KEEEX SAS in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP294090. The court found the modification request admissible but determined that only a 50% increase of the original €200,000 guarantee was appropriate, ordering KEEEX to provide an additional €100,000 in security within one month.
Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is a rectification order issued by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Milan, concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. sought rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a prior decision dated 26 May 2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30 June 2023 and later withdrawn it on 26 November 2024. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from the prior decision.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produktie S.A., and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. Valeo sought to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain APX-series products and by narrowing the territorial scope to exclude Belgium and Germany for certain defendants, and to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie). The Judge-Rapporteur granted all of Valeo's requests, finding that the unconditional limitations must be allowed under Rule 263 RoP, that the territorial changes constituted permissible limitations rather than withdrawals, and that Bosch Produktie had no legitimate interest to oppose the withdrawal since the counterclaim for revocation would have erga omnes effect if successful.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute and University-Industry Cooperation Foundation of Korea Aerospace University v.Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others
Procedural order of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court staying proceedings in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties, comprising ETRI and Korea Aerospace University as claimants and multiple Meta entities as defendants, jointly requested a stay because they had reached an amicable solution in out-of-court negotiations requiring further implementation. The Court granted the stay and ordered the parties to either withdraw their actions or update the Court by 10 August 2026.
UMICORE N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V., RECAT GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning confidentiality in an infringement action involving European Patent EP4087952. The defendants requested that certain technical information in their Statement of Defence and Exhibit ES5 be classified as confidential and excluded from public access. The Court granted the confidentiality designation, expanded the list of persons at Umicore who could access the information to include technical experts, and ordered that Umicore's reply deadlines under R. 29(a) RoP begin from the date it receives the full unredacted Statement of Defence.
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.