Ulrike Vo
52 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
52 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
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.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the retrospective extension of deadlines in preliminary measures proceedings. The Defendants sought to overturn a Local Division order that granted an extension based on human error, arguing it circumvented strict rules for missed deadlines (R. 320 RoP). The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division's ruling, emphasizing judicial discretion and procedural stability over challenging the initial decision.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing a patent infringement action when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. The Court permitted Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong to withdraw its claim against LONGi Solar and related entities, provided no party had a legitimate interest in the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses a request for an extension of deadlines in the infringement action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities regarding patent EP 2 645 714. The court granted the requested time extension, ensuring fairness between all parties involved in the complex litigation. Additionally, the ruling clarified the procedures for handling confidential information submitted during the proceedings under specific UPC Rules of Procedure. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility and careful management employed by the UPC CFI.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs decision addressed the allocation of legal fees arising from a complex infringement and revocation action involving EP 3 225 320. The court scrutinized the reasonableness and necessity of the defendant's extensive cost claims, including those related to 'strategic considerations.' Ultimately, the court partially granted the claim for costs, ordering the claimant to pay €33,224.50 to the respondent. A key procedural point was the rejection of interest on awarded costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 2 903 267. The defendants raised significant jurisdictional challenges, arguing that the EPCG was incompatible with EU law (AEUV/EUV). The court decisively rejected these arguments, affirming the UPC's jurisdiction over both current and past acts of alleged infringement. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd.
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated a patent infringement action against several mobile technology companies, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. However, before any substantive decision was reached, Qualcomm filed a request to withdraw the suit due to reaching a settlement with Defendant 1. The UPC Local Division Munich permitted this withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding voluntary withdrawal and clarifies the rules governing court fee reimbursement in such scenarios.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural gap regarding the reimbursement of court fees when an application for interim measures is withdrawn. The Court ruled that despite the strict wording of the Rules of Procedure, the principle allowing fee recovery upon withdrawal could be analogously applied to interim measure applications. This provides clarity and predictability for practitioners dealing with early-stage litigation in the UPC.
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.