Zana
41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
41 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
The defendant, PR Medical s.r.l., an Italian company, raised a preliminary objection requesting that the language of proceedings be changed from English to Italian, arguing that Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) UPCA required Italian as the language since it is based in Italy and the alleged infringement occurred there. The Milan Local Division rejected the objection, holding that the two cumulative conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP were not both satisfied because the claimant had alleged and shown infringement in other Contracting Member States (notably Germany and Spain), meaning the action could have been brought before other local divisions.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., proprietor of European patents EP1910572 and EP2500439 relating to RNAscope in situ hybridization technology for detecting nucleic acids in individual cells, sued Molecular Instruments, Inc. for patent infringement regarding its HCR (Hybridization Chain Reaction) products. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found both patents valid, dismissing the Defendant's counterclaim for revocation, but held that the Defendant's HCR products did not infringe the patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2726230 B1 concerning a method and apparatus for continuously producing lattice girders, brought an infringement action against AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding their Girderflex and Girderflex VSX machines. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, arguing that AWM had publicly disclosed the same technical solution through prior JIT machines before the patent's priority date. The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Progress to bear the costs.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC sued Texas Instruments and its German subsidiaries for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 746 957, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments implemented certain features of the patent claim, and that the defendants' arguments regarding lack of inventive step based on general common knowledge were also unsuccessful.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. Defendants 2 and 3 requested security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant, a recently founded Texas-based licensing entity, lacked sufficient financial resources to satisfy a potential cost reimbursement claim. The judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide security of EUR 600,000, and the panel rejected the Claimant's request for review under R. 333 RoP, finding the amount appropriate given the complexity of the proceedings and the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP filed by Ericsson regarding the confidentiality regime for its licensing documents in patent infringement proceedings involving EP3076673. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to prevent Asustek's employees from accessing sensitive licensing data involving Asustek's competitors. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence of an actual risk of antitrust violations, but granted leave to appeal to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action relating to EP 2 746 957. The Claimant sought review under R. 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's order dismissing its request to file a further written pleading under R. 12.5 and R. 36 RoP. The panel dismissed the application for review, confirming the judge-rapporteur's order on the grounds that the Claimant's request lacked sufficient substantiation and that the vague points raised did not justify allowing additional written submissions.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Order
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Unified Patent Court decision.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 2727342 at the Milan Local Division. Following Digital River Ireland Ltd.'s insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland, both Ericsson and Digital River sought to withdraw their respective claims against each other. The Court allowed both withdrawals, with the main infringement action continuing against Asustek and Arvato, and ordered both parties to bear their own costs based on principles of fairness and equity.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute centered on the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents designated as confidential by the Defendants. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club allowing access to specific external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUS entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents, with Ericsson requesting an 'external eyes only' regime while the defendants sought access for at least one natural person from each party. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Alpinestars Research S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. (Defendant No. 2) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the UPC Milan Local Division, particularly with respect to alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including over alleged infringement of European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars S.p.A. (defendant in the main infringement proceedings) challenging the jurisdiction of the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Alpinestars argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction, including over alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including for European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., a leading Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, filed an application before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Milan seeking an order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative startup developing an electric snow groomer (Snow Cat). Prinoth suspected that Xelom's vehicle reproduced the teachings of its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436. The Court granted the order inaudita altera parte, authorizing inspection of Xelom's and its parent company Technoalpin's premises, seizure of a sample vehicle, and forensic copying of digital evidence, subject to a security deposit of €75,000.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese applied to extend the deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and Reply to statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6 until February 27, 2025, to coordinate with pending EPO opposition proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur granted the application, finding that the extension promoted procedural efficiency while preserving the adversarial rights of all parties, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
C-Kore Systems Limited filed an infringement action against Novawell before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 265 793, and Novawell filed a counterclaim for revocation. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 10 December 2024, and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the proceedings and counterclaim be dismissed, kept the settlement details confidential, and noted the parties' agreement on costs with no order as to costs.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in connection with a partial withdrawal of its infringement action. The dispute centered on Exhibit 70, a settlement agreement between Dainese and Defendant 4 (Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy), which Dainese sought to keep confidential from other defendants and third parties. The Court granted confidentiality protection, restricted access to specific named individuals from Defendants 1 and 6, and ordered Dainese to file English translations of the documents.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in an infringement action involving European Patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese sought complete refusal of access to unredacted versions of its written submissions, while Defendants 1 (Alpinestars S.p.A.) and 6 (Motocard Bike, S.L.) opposed this and requested access. The Court established a 'confidential club' limiting access to specified lawyers/representatives and natural persons from each party, ordered production of English translations, and granted leave to appeal.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A. and other defendants regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Defendant Alpinestars S.p.A. requested an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation to await the outcome of parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted the extension to 27 February 2025, balancing procedural efficiency with the adversarial principle.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural Order
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rescheduling an Interim Conference in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The defendant Himson Engineering Private Limited declared unavailability due to prior professional commitments, and the court rescheduled the conference to the afternoon of the same day and converted it to a video-conference format with the agreement of all parties.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against A. Menarini Diagnostics, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327 through the sale of the EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump insulin patch pump. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Insulet failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the balance of interests did not favor granting the injunction. Insulet was ordered to pay EUR 117,465.00 as interim costs.
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.