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 is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a cost determination application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine costs and that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance, even when they relate to costs of appeal proceedings. Rematec's request to refer the cost determination application to the Local Division Mannheim, while preserving the original filing date, was rejected.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. for alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation, particularly transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation. The Court of Appeal addressed key issues including the permissibility of asserting a patent in a non-registered claim form in interim proceedings, the admissibility of new auxiliary requests under R. 222 RoP, and the determination of intended use under Art. 26 EPGÜ. The appeal was dismissed, and ONWARD Medical was ordered to pay provisional costs of EUR 56,000 to Niche Biomedical.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
ALPINA Coffee Systems appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding infringement of EP 3 398 487 and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that ALPINA failed to demonstrate that the contested decision was evidently erroneous, that enforcement would render the appeal moot, or that fundamental procedural rights were violated, and that its arguments regarding potential double modification of the accused embodiment due to parallel proceedings were too vague and speculative.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG before the Local Chamber Mannheim for infringement of European Patent EP 2 951 625, which relates to an optical apparatus for combining laser light. The dispute concerned IPG's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers (two-beam lasers with adjustable mode beam capability). The court found infringement, rejected IPG's counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, provisional damages of €115,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Provisional procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants filed a request under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure for protection of confidential information, seeking to designate certain information in their pleadings and annexes as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. The plaintiff raised objections to the confidentiality designation, arguing the information did not require such protection.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. and Others (Netgear Deutschland GmbH and Others as Respondents before Court of First Instance)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Huawei's appeals against an order of the Local Chamber Munich granting TP-Link access to certain redacted documents filed in infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321. The court held that TP-Link had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent, and that Huawei failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming confidentiality under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled an oral hearing for June 17, 2026, added Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party, and proposed a consensual procedural approach regarding a request for restitutio in integrum by Defendant 1 and the inclusion of the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' product embodiment into the proceedings.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Mannheim, which had largely upheld bellissa's infringement claim regarding EP 2 223 589 and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim. The court found that Windhager failed to demonstrate that the first instance decision contained obvious errors or that its interest in staying enforcement outweighed bellissa's interest in preventing patent infringement. The pending new revocation action before the Central Chamber Milan was deemed irrelevant at this stage.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 concerning cable processing devices, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. at the Productronica trade fair in Munich. Komax suspected that BOZHIWANG's 'BZW-3005' machine infringed claims 1, 7, and 9 of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering inspection of the machine and seizure of related documents at the trade fair stand, subject to extensive safeguards for the respondent's trade secrets.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (under Article 60 EPGÜ) at the trade fair stand of STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the EMO Messe Hannover, in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. After the inspection was executed and the court-appointed expert produced a detailed description, the respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but did not do so. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, lifted the protective order in relation to the applicant, and set the deadline for filing the main action.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Anordnung
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a light emitting diode (LED) of the flip-chip type. The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's finding that the patent was invalid due to added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) because claim 1, directed to an LED with only a single mesa, extended beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought provisional measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1 (relating to a neuromodulation system) by Niche Biomedical's 'ExaStim' stimulation system in Germany and France. The court rejected the application for interim measures, along with the auxiliary requests based on alternative claim formulations, holding that such auxiliary requests signal doubts about the validity of the patent as granted and are generally inadmissible in Art. 62 EPGÜ proceedings. The respondent's application for preliminary cost reimbursement of €168,000 was also rejected for lack of substantiation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sought to withdraw its infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH sought to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation. Both parties consented to the respective withdrawals and declared they would not make cost applications. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected objections filed by the defendants under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's international and territorial jurisdiction over alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1 in non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom). The court held that international jurisdiction was established under Article 31 UPCA, Article 71b(1), Article 4(1), and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation because all defendants are domiciled in Germany, and that Article 34 UPCA concerns the territorial scope of effects of decisions rather than jurisdiction.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation of the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' machine exhibited at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair. The applicant argued that access to the machine through normal commercial channels was impossible due to its high price (estimated well above EUR 100,000) and the respondent's exclusive, personalized distribution network. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the inspection to be carried out by a court bailiff and appointed expert at the respondent's trade fair stand.
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.