European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 54 · 1,592 total
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
In this preliminary objection case, Honeywell challenged jurisdictional and competence arguments raised by multiple defendants against its infringement suit concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Local Division Mannheim rejected all objections, clarifying key aspects of UPC jurisdiction. The court held that the requirements for local division competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA are met without needing an extra 'connection,' and affirmed that liability can extend to instigators even if they are not domiciled in the EU.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision involving prosthetic heart valves, the UPC Central Division addressed both a revocation action and a counterclaim for infringement. The court ultimately found that several claims of EP 4 151 181 B1 were infringed by Meril's products (Octacor/Octapro System). Furthermore, the ruling established strict compliance measures, including substantial penalty payments for non-adherence to the injunction orders. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where validity challenges run parallel to infringement enforcement.
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.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a request by the defendants to align and extend key deadlines in the case against AX Wireless, LLC. The court found that harmonizing the timelines for all parties, including those served internationally, would significantly improve case management efficiency. This decision underscores the Court's focus on practical, efficient procedural handling while respecting statutory requirements.
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.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
In this cost decision case, the UPC Local Division Munich ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and its affiliates. The court awarded a substantial sum of EUR 771,649.56 to cover Edwards' legal costs incurred during the proceedings related to EP patent 3669828. The ruling emphasized that given the overall complexity of the case, the judge-rapporteur has broad discretion and may award costs even if specific disputed elements (like travel details) are marginal.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural case, the UPC Local Division allowed Brita SE to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation against EP 2 387 547. Although a decision on the revocation claim had previously been rendered by the Panel, the court ruled that withdrawal was permissible because no final judgment existed and the appeal period remained open. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust their litigation strategy even after initial rulings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation; EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for file inspection by legal counsel (HSF Kramer LLP). The Court analyzed the need for HSF to access redacted documents from related proceedings, balancing transparency against party interests. While denying broad access to exhibits due to concerns over scoping and proportionality, the Judge Rapporteur granted limited access to key pleadings, affirming that the reasoned decision itself provides sufficient insight into the case.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed Insulet Corporation's request for cost compensation against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court found that while the applicant was entitled to recovery of reasonable and proportionate costs related to the merits proceedings, the requested amount needed significant reduction. Key factors influencing this decision included the lack of clarity in submitted invoices, the overlap between arguments presented before the UPC and the Court of Appeal, and the exclusion of costs relating to the enforcement phase. The final award granted Insulet an additional EUR 113,773.40.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
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.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for implementing penalty clauses under the Rules of Procedure. The case involved an appeal concerning cost decisions related to non-compliance penalties set by a Local Division panel. The court reinforced that penalty orders must be explicitly stated in the operative part of a decision, not just mentioned in the grounds. This ruling provides crucial guidance for practitioners on how to structure and enforce compliance obligations within UPC proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
In this procedural case, Dolby International AB initiated proceedings against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the previously scheduled oral hearing due to unforeseen circumstances involving the defendants' legal representation. A new date for the proceedings has been tentatively set for February 4, 2026.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of infringement claims in a stroller patent case (EP 1 905 615). The Defendants challenged the Claimant's attempt to extend its argument from literal infringement to equivalence for additional features. The Panel ultimately upheld the initial order, confirming that expanding the equivalence argument does not fundamentally alter the nature or scope of the dispute. This ruling provides clarity on how the doctrine of equivalence can be applied procedurally within UPC case management.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This preliminary order in a SEP infringement case highlights the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency. The court denied a request by VIVO Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. to postpone its Statement of Defence filing deadline pending the resolution of a Preliminary Objection concerning jurisdiction and FRAND defenses. The ruling reinforces that defendants must not use POs as a mechanism to unduly delay core proceedings, especially when the underlying defense (FRAND) would be raised anyway.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In this procedural order, Ona Patents SL sought to review a previous court decision regarding an interim conference, arguing that related parallel proceedings had generated new relevant arguments. The UPC Local Division dismissed the request, emphasizing the legal independence of different cases within the Unified Patent Court framework. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to case management procedures and limits the ability of parties to introduce late or external material simply to influence scheduling.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
This UPC decision is an interim order from the Central Division in a revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380. The court confirmed the oral hearing date for December 3, 2025, and addressed several procedural matters. Notably, the claimant was ordered to provide translations of specific prior art documents (D2 and D4), while the defendant was allowed to re-order its auxiliary requests.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning retail merchandising technology, the UPC found that HL Display AB's patent covering systems for securing shelf accessories was validly infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s products. While granting the infringement claim and ordering substantial damages, the court also issued a key procedural holding: counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement are inadmissible if the claimant has not previously asserted the patent against that specific product. This decision reinforces strict adherence to assertion requirements within UPC proceedings.
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.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
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.
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.