European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 73 · 2,185 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
Application for a review of the Registrar's decision
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This case concerns an appeal by Huawei Technologies against a decision of the Local Division Munich regarding an application by Quinn Emanuel for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The underlying infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek had been terminated before Quinn Emanuel's application was filed. The Court of Appeal addressed whether decisions of the Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP can be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and confirmed that the legal remedy against the panel's decision is appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
This decision by the President of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda to remove an opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court that had been filed by Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH in respect of European patent EP 2 581 193. SILIMED argued that Polytech was never entitled to the patent, as confirmed by a final German court decision ordering transfer of all national parts to SILIMED. The Registrar had rejected the application for removal on 10 April 2026, and SILIMED sought review of that decision. The decision sets out the legal framework under Rules 5A and 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure governing applications to remove unauthorised opt-outs.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This appeal concerns a request for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Quinn Emanuel sought access to certain submissions filed in a terminated infringement case between Huawei and MediaTek before the Local Division Munich. The Reporting Judge initially granted the request, subject to redactions, and the second panel of the Local Division confirmed that decision, finding Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, which issued this order addressing procedural matters regarding the appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
Generic Order
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, Romed NV
Infringement Action
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-26) under reference UPC_0F52BA837A, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril Gmbh concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Co
This Order II concerns an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC proceedings (infringement action UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_629/2025) relating to European Patent EP 3 107 487 B1. The applicants sought an order requiring LABS to produce specific evidence, including sales figures for Motiva SilkSurface implants, physical samples manufactured before the priority date, and various promotional and marketing materials. The Court granted the 'Primary Order' requests (with the exception of request I.c and an adjustment to request I.b), ordering LABS to produce the requested evidence within 21 days, while emphasizing the need to align evidence-gathering requests between parallel UPC and UK proceedings for procedural efficiency and proportionality.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
Revocation Action
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Infringement Action
1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP294090. The defendants (OpenAI, Adobe, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation Projects, and C2PA) filed requests to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent modification request from KEEEX's June 5, 2026 memorandum. The judge-rapporteur partially granted and partially rejected these requests, declaring certain infringement-related
Robert Bosch (multiple entities) v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the competence of the Paris Local Division to hear a patent infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Bosch entities. Bosch had filed preliminary objections arguing that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not met. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both conditions were satisfied because the Bosch defendants belonged to the same group and were involved in the design, production, and marketing of the allegedly infringing wiper products, and because the products at issue appeared to be substantially the same.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS & Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside orders of the Paris Central Division that had held it lacked competence and referred the infringement action to the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal held that the Paris Central Division has competence to hear an infringement action brought against multiple defendants, some of whom are established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, where there is a commercial relationship among the defendants and the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The Court clarified that the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA does not constitute an exception to the competence of local and regional divisions but rather provides for central division competence in specific circumstances.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
Appeal RoP220.2
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
Revocation Action
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Infringement Action
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
Appeal RoP220.2
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
ILLUMINA, INC. v.Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
Infringement Action
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.