Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 1 of 6
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural matters in a dispute over neuromodulation systems. While the core infringement appeal was dismissed, the court issued an order regarding provisional costs. The ruling reinforces principles on how non-registered claims can be asserted and clarifies the standards for determining indirect patent use (Verwendungsbestimmung) based on objective evidence. This case is significant for practitioners dealing with procedural hurdles in complex medical device IP litigation.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed ALPINA's request for suspensive effect against the initial infringement judgment issued by the Local Court. ALPINA argued that immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm, especially given ongoing parallel validity proceedings. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that ALPINA failed to provide concrete evidence of significant damages or specific costs associated with the alleged infringement and subsequent required modifications. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests for suspension must be grounded in demonstrable, present disadvantages.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG
This UPC appeal case involved an application for interim measures concerning patent EP 1 962 668, filed by Menarini Diagnostics against Roche. After the initial proceedings at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the claimants withdrew their request for provisional relief. The UPC Board of Appeal accepted this withdrawal and terminated the case, highlighting the importance of amicable resolution in complex patent litigation.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In a complex dispute involving EP 3 805 415, the UPC Local Court of Düsseldorf issued an interim procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information. The defendants sought to classify various internal reports and supplier data as trade secrets, while the claimant objected to this classification. This ruling establishes strict rules for handling sensitive documents during litigation, including access limitations, confidentiality obligations, and potential penalties for breaches.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal regarding the public access to confidential documents submitted in underlying infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link. The court ultimately rejected Huawei's attempt to block document disclosure, upholding the initial order that allowed TP-Link limited access to redacted versions of the files. This ruling reinforces the balance between the public right of access under the EPC and the need to protect sensitive commercial information in UPC litigation.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, ALD France S.A.S challenged the validity of EP 3 083 107 B1 against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The respondent argued that the action was abusive and constituted double joinder due to organizational ties with a related company involved in parallel proceedings. The Central Division rejected these arguments, affirming ALD France's independent legal standing and upholding the principle that fragmented patent litigation is permissible under the UPC framework.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG sought provisional measures to inspect the respondent's automated cable processing machine, 'BZW-3005,' at a trade fair in Munich, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 024 099 B1. The claimant argued that prior attempts to examine the machine were impossible due to security and access restrictions. However, the Local Division ultimately rejected the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the stringent procedural hurdles required to obtain urgent investigative measures within the UPC framework.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for inspection and evidence preservation concerning EP 2 983 864 B1. The court granted the claimant access to the unredacted expert report following the on-site investigation at the respondent's trade show booth. However, this order is conditional: the claimant must file a main infringement action against STEROS within a strict deadline, otherwise, the preservation measures will lapse.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o.
Brita SE successfully obtained an interim injunction from the UPC Local Chamber against Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1. The patent covers a specific water treatment device featuring a cartridge with a rotatable locking shaft for securing the connection head. The court ordered an immediate cessation of offering and placing on the market of the infringing cartridges across multiple EU member states. This decision highlights the UPC's efficiency in granting urgent provisional measures to protect IP rights.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 223 320). The central dispute revolved around whether the patent claims represented an impermissible expansion beyond the disclosure in the original international application. While the court discussed principles regarding translation and scope, it ultimately dismissed the appeal. This outcome is significant as it reinforces the validity of patents even when challenges based on improper claim drafting or scope extension are raised.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought an injunction against Niche Biomedical, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent EP 3 421 081 B1 concerning neuromodulation systems. The Munich Local Division ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The court emphasized that in such proceedings, attempts to modify claims to address validity doubts are typically rejected, highlighting a strict standard for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the high bar required for patentees seeking urgent interim protection under the UPC.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a procedural decision before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, Huawei Technologies withdrew its infringement claim against MediaTek. Concurrently, MediaTek's subsidiary also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation of the patent EP 3 567 731. The court formally accepted both withdrawals and declared the proceedings terminated. While no substantive judgment was reached on infringement or validity, the decision provided clarity on procedural matters, including the partial reimbursement of court fees.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries regarding the use of their 5G-enabled devices, alleging that these products utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid for a wide range of UPC member states, providing a significant defense for the defendants.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek-affiliated companies regarding their 5G products, alleging that the devices utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid in numerous UPC member states, providing a dual victory for the defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Roku Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement proceedings initiated by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. Roku argued that the EPC's structure violated fundamental EU rights, particularly concerning judicial independence and jurisdiction. The Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must adhere strictly to the enumerated grounds in the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework governing the UPC's competence and administrative flexibility.
Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against the rejection of its opposition filings. Roku had argued that the UPC's structure and jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights, specifically concerning judicial independence and the competence allocation under the EPC. The court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that all grounds for opposition must be within the scope defined by Rule 19.1 VerfO. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework of the UPC regarding its jurisdictional powers and administrative flexibility.
Dolby International AB v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. Roku argued that the UPC's jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights and challenged the court's organizational structure. The Court firmly dismissed these arguments, clarifying that jurisdictional objections must adhere to specific grounds under the Rules of Procedure. The ruling also affirmed the Administrative Committee's authority to adapt the UPC's structure as necessary.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Robert Bosch GmbH sued Grizzly Tools and related entities for infringement of EP 3 030 383 across multiple EU states, including non-EPCU members like Poland, Spain, and the UK. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over these foreign territories. The Mannheim Local Division decisively rejected these objections, affirming that the UPC possesses international competence to handle claims related to non-EPCU member states, consistent with recent CJEU jurisprudence (BSH Hausgeräte). This ruling reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the unified patent system.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
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.