European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 63 · 1,878 total
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings, as it was not involved in any current dispute concerning the patent and its reliance on terminated US IPR proceedings and abstract competitive interest was insufficient.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the release of a cost security (Prozesskostensicherheit) previously deposited by the defendant in connection with appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had paid the cost assessment amount of EUR 38,230.10 to the plaintiff in full, and the plaintiff consented to the release of the security, rendering the purpose of the security moot.
Amycel, LLC v.Defendant (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request by the appellant (a natural person and defendant in the underlying infringement proceedings) for interpretation facilities between English and Polish during an oral hearing. The court held that the appellant's legitimate interest in understanding the proceedings and communicating with his representative was not sufficient to render court-arranged interpretation appropriate under Art. 51(2) UPCA and R. 109.2 RoP. The court indicated that the appellant could engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP, provided he informed the Registry by 9 September 2026.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court issued an order under R. 296.3 RoP interpreting the effect of resuming a suspended procedure on procedural time limits. The court ruled that after resumption of a suspended procedure, the ongoing procedural time limits are resumed from the resumption order, taking into account the time limits that had already elapsed before the suspension, rather than starting completely anew. The court set the deadline for the Statement of Defence at October 2, 2026, and established a briefing schedule for the security request side-procedure.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This is an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an ex parte order of the Hague Local Division granting Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 (relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers). The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, revoking the parts of the order that permitted Essity or its representatives to ask WEPA personnel direct questions about technical details of WEPA's products or processes, while otherwise largely upholding the preservation measures.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued The Walt Disney Company and ten affiliated entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, which relates to sharing multimedia content in a peer-to-peer configuration, targeting the Disney+ streaming service in Germany and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the patent valid in a limited form based on auxiliary requests and held that the defendants infringed, ordering an injunction, information disclosure, and damages, with costs split 90/10 in favor of the claimant for the infringement action and 70/30 for the counterclaim for revocation.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S seeking revocation of European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, which relates to a 'Wind turbine power transmission system.' The Claimant argued invalidity on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and that the patent proprietor was not entitled to the patent under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court addressed key headnotes on the interpretation of the entitlement ground for revocation and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the timing of new arguments raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant sought to have the Defendants' new arguments regarding the Z01M die prior use right and the 'internal mode' of the Y2BM die disregarded as belated, or alternatively to be permitted to file further written pleadings. The Düsseldorf Local Division deferred the decision on whether to reject the new arguments until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to respond in writing to the new arguments by 17 September 2026.
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant IAGON LTD provide security for costs in the amount 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 they had not presented in a sufficiently credible manner that an order for security for costs was appropriate based on either Iagon's financial position or the alleged undue burden of enforcement.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd
Aesculap AG sued three Shanghai Bojin-related entities for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which protects a surgical torque-transmitting instrument with a cutting tool. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that it lacked jurisdiction over the two Chinese defendants under Rule 116.3 RoP (long arm jurisdiction), but held the European-based Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediate for offering and distributing infringing drill bits in Germany. The court issued an injunction, information/order disclosure obligations, and coercive penalties against Defendant 2, while dismissing the claims against Defendants 1 and 3 and splitting costs equally between the plaintiff and Defendant 2.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation filed an application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA against the Court of Appeal's decision of 2 June 2026, which had set aside the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of the defence of private prior use and dismissed the infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm also requested that the application for rehearing be granted suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for suspensive effect, holding that under Art. 81(2) UPCA and R. 252 RoP, applications for rehearing do not have suspensive effect as a general rule, and that Fujifilm had failed to provide specific reasons or identify particular prejudice justifying a departure from that principle.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. relating to a juice extraction module for a juicer. The Local Division had revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of the patent's claims as amended and dismissed all of Hurom's infringement claims against NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK. The Court of Appeal dismissed Hurom's appeal against the revocation as unfounded (for the New Main Request) and inadmissible (for the New Auxiliary Requests), and dismissed its appeal against the dismissal of infringement claims as unfounded. The cross-appeal by NUC and WARMCOOK was partly dismissed as inadmissible and partly as unfounded, with Hurom ordered to pay costs including an interim award of €100,000.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.
This appeal concerned an order of the Court of First Instance (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application by Avient Protective Materials B.V. for the production of evidence to substantiate alleged infringement of EP 2 791 402, a patent relating to UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The judge-rapporteur had ordered production of two J300 UD fabric variants (30 kg each) and English-language versions of the appellants' company introduction video, but rejected requests for internal test reports and additional fabric variants. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error in the lower court's assessment of necessity and proportionality, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. & Others
Aesculap AG sued Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd. for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following an oral hearing on June 17, 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) of the Rules of Procedure, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and declared the proceedings terminated between those parties, while the case continues against defendant 2.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
iCAT Corporation brought a patent infringement action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants filed a preliminary objection under R.19 RoP arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of financial compensation to acts occurring after 11 June 2021. The court dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible, holding that it concerned the scope of relief rather than the court's jurisdiction or competence.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court addressed procedural disputes between claimant SYPOX GmbH and defendant Topsoe A/S. The central issues were whether SYPOX qualified as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) for reduced court fees, the appropriate value of the proceedings, whether the ceiling for recoverable costs should be lowered, and whether SYPOX should provide security for costs. The court ruled that SYPOX qualifies as an SME, set the provisional value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected the request to lower the recoverable costs ceiling, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524, and the Vivo defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the parties reached a settlement agreement, both sides filed withdrawal applications pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure on 13 August 2026. The Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, closed the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Cilag GmbH International, Gubelstraße 34, 6300 Zug, Schweiz, v.Respondent
Cilag GmbH International, part of the Johnson & Johnson group, sought interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) based on European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-powered surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The dispute concerned the allegedly infringing products 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero,' distributed by RiVOLUTION in Germany and manufactured by Chinese companies Ningbo David Medical Device and Ningbo Verykind Medical Device. The central legal issue was urgency, specifically when the applicant could be deemed to have obtained sufficient knowledge of the infringement to act in a timely manner.
1) Genevant Sciences GmbH, 2) Arbutus Biopharma Corpora7on v.1) Moderna, Inc., 2) MODERNATX, INC.
This case concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-191/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-617/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities regarding European Patent EP2279254. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims and closure of the proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 25% of the court fees, reduced from the standard 50% due to the exceptional circumstances of the case.
Versah LLC, c/o Salah Huwais, DDS, 2000 Spring Arbor Rd., Su, Rechtsanwalt Ole Dirks, Wildanger, Kehrwald, Graf von Schwer v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., 194, Jisan-ro 175beon-gil, Jinwi-myeon, P, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Alon Tavor POB 1128, Afula
Versah LLC, an exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 directed to a rotary osteotome with enhanced flute profile for dental autografting, sued HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. for infringement. The defendants manufacture and sell dental burs marketed under names such as 'Total Haenaem Bur Set' that allegedly infringe the patent's claims regarding continuously negative rake angles on cutting and densifying faces. A third defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, was dismissed from the case following an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed issues of standing as exclusive licensee, the admission of a late-filed auxiliary request, and the principles for assessing direct infringement of a product claim.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the mutual withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) concerning EP 2 387 862 and the associated counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026), filed by Malikie Innovations Limited against multiple Xiaomi entities. The parties, having agreed to discontinue the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, were granted proportional reimbursement of court fees at 50% each.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation
The Local Division Mannheim of the Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026) concerning European patent EP 2 387 862, as the parties had reached a mutual agreement before the closure of the written procedure. The court ordered a proportional reimbursement of court fees, granting 50% reimbursement to each side (15,500 € to the Claimant and 13,250 € to the Defendants). No cost decision was rendered, as all parties declared that one was not requested.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, products incorporating AX201, from Q2 2019 and AX211, from Q v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Lisbon dismissed AsusTek's application for a confidentiality order regarding information it was required to provide to Ericsson following a 6 May 2026 decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim. The Court held that the request was filed too late, as AsusTek had not raised confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings and provided no justification for the delay. Additionally, the Court found that part of the request—seeking to limit the purposes for which Ericsson could use the information—fell outside the scope of the confidentiality regime and concerned substantive law.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der, (Claimant) - Hansastraße 27c - 80686 - v.HMD Global Oy, Sabine Klepsch
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, a German research organization and owner of European Patent EP 2 590 concerning an apparatus for decoding signals with transients, sued Finnish smartphone manufacturer HMD Global Oy for infringement by devices running Android OS version 9 or later. The dispute centered on FRAND licensing negotiations conducted through the Via AAC patent pool and bilateral channels between 2017 and 2025, with HMD insisting on bilateral licensing and raising an exhaustion defense based on existing third-party license agreements. The Hamburg Local Division addressed key questions regarding whether a patent holder must offer only one FRAND licensing route, whether an implementer can demand bilateral licensing, and whether such insistence indicates unwillingness to take a license.
1) Genevant Sciences GmbH, 2) Arbutus Biopharma Corpora7on v.1) Moderna, Inc., 2) MODERNATX, INC.
This case before the UPC Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna and related entities regarding EP4241767, along with a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-607/2025). Both parties jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims pursuant to Rule 265.1 RoP, having reached a settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedin
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. and Others
This is a case management order issued by the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2590626 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). The order addresses the admission of new exhibits into the proceedings, including the Cayman 2024 Report and the 2021 BioNTech Website, and clarifies the scope of inventive step attacks and auxiliary requests that PBNT may rely on at the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2026.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal lodged by Windhager as inadmissible because the Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1(a) RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication is insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement does not fall within the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's subsequent application for re-establishment of rights, made during the oral hearing, was also rejected as inadmissible because the six-month time limit under Rule 320.2 RoP had already expired.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., vertreten durch die Geschäfts, ihren Vorsitzenden Herrn Yoshinari Kitajima, 1-1-1, Ichigaya v.Zapp AG, vertreten durch den Vorstand, Dr. Stefan Seng (Vors, Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsfüh
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for an oral hearing scheduled for September 17, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. (Japan), sought court-arranged simultaneous interpretation at procedural cost, while the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH (Germany), opposed that aspect. Applying a two-step test, the court found that simultaneous interpretation was appropriate but not at procedural cost, granting the plaintiff permission to hire its own interpreters under Rule 109.4 RoP who may use the courtroom's simultaneous interpretation equipment.
Nuna International B.V. & Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) filed by Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 relating to a child seat system. Cybex GmbH, the patent holder, had obtained an order finding it more likely than not that both direct and indirect patent infringement occurred. After initially indicating intent to enforce the order, Cybex declared it would not enforce the disclaimer portion of the indirect infringement ruling. The Court of Appeal addressed whether a valid waiver of enforcement could eliminate the need for legal protection regarding the suspensive effect application.
SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United States v.Groupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.