European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 67 · 2,007 total
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 concerning a display and distribution package for eggs, valid in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court dismissed the infringement action, partially revoked the patent (revoking claims 1, 6, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-8 while maintaining claims 9-13), and allocated costs accordingly.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_699/2025) concerning penalty payments for non-compliance with orders from a final decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023). The Court of Appeal provided extensive guidance on the system of penalties under Rules 354.3 and 354.4 RoP, and ruled that the appeal was only partly successful, setting aside order 1 and the cost decision while maintaining orders 2 and 3 in slightly limited form. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs in both instances.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o.a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH and Others
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. The defendants' representatives demonstrated that one of their lead attorneys was unable to attend the scheduled oral hearing for personal reasons, and that substitution was not feasible due to the short notice and complexity of the case. The court granted the defendants' request and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for October 16, 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o.a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This is a preliminary order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a Preliminary Objection arguing that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over the case because Sun Patent Trust requested a ruling on a FRAND issue as a main claim rather than as a defence. The court denied Vivo's request to postpone the filing of its Statement of Defence, finding no exceptional circumstances to derogate from procedural efficiency.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
Revocation action brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (Poland) against Vilpe Oy (Finland) concerning European patent EP 2 649 380 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 9 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural orders regarding the timeliness of submissions, translation requirements for evidence documents, reordering of auxiliary requests, and the admission of a warning letter into the proceedings. The oral hearing was confirmed for 3 December 2025 in Munich, with the value of the case set at EUR 630,000.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, which relates to metal sintering preparations for connecting electronic components. The court maintained the patent in amended form, partially allowing the revocation counterclaim, but dismissed the infringement action. Costs were split 40% to the defendant and 60% to the plaintiff.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of the Hague) found that EP 2 432 351 B1, relating to a system for securing shelf accessories to a shelf, was valid and infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP). The court granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, and damages against BSRP, while dismissing BSRP's counterclaim for revocation and declaring its counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement inadmissible.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1 relating to metal sintering preparations for connecting components in electronics. The plaintiff (Heraeus Electronics) brought an infringement action against the defendant (Vibrantz GmbH), while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and addressed the binding effect of a prior final judgment from the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) that had maintained the German part of the patent in amended form.
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.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between the parties in parallel infringement and validity proceedings, along with the related question of court fee reimbursement. Both parties requested 40% reimbursement of their already paid court fees of €11,000, but the court determined that each party was entitled to only €2,000, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that would have become due if no settlement had been reached.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
Hypertherm Inc. filed a patent infringement assessment action against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. before the Local Division of Milan. After the proceedings were suspended to allow settlement negotiations, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested termination of the proceedings under rule 360 RoP, along with a 60% reimbursement of court fees under rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP. The court granted both requests, ordering the archiving of the case and the reimbursement of 6,600 Euro to Hypertherm Inc.
Hyler BV v.Cretes NV
This case before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV in parallel infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Both parties requested reimbursement of 40% of the already paid court fees (€4,400 each), but the court ordered reimbursement of only €2,000 each, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that had not yet been paid. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its confidentiality, and terminated the proceedings.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Managing Directors v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin companies to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy infringing wireless chargers, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings. The court also addressed key legal questions regarding the interpretation of 'offering' under Art. 25 EPGÜ, liability of managing directors for patent infringement, and the proportionality of corrective measures.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Others v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. Philips, the patent holder, sued Belkin companies and their managing directors for offering wireless chargers on www.belkin.com that comply with the Qi standard's Extended Power Profile. The Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeals, ordering injunctive relief and corrective measures against the corporate defendants while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings, and declined to hold the individual managing directors personally liable.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited and Others
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated October 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997 relating to wireless inductive power transfer. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities (and their managing directors) for patent infringement regarding wireless chargers meeting the Qi Extended Power Profile standard, while Belkin filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy the infringing products, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean manufacturer of juicers and registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 (relating to a juice extractor), sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for patent infringement regarding the 'AUTO10' slow juicer sold under the 'Kuvings' brand. The Local Division Mannheim separated the proceedings concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom pending the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). Following that decision, the court held that the defendants infringed claim 1 of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, ordering damages and an information/accounting obligation.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hurom Co., Ltd. sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor, concerning NUC's slow juicer marketed as 'AUTO10'. The proceedings were separated from the main action to address the national parts of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Polish, Spanish, and UK national parts of the patent.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court revoked an ex-parte Saisie (evidence preservation) order that had been issued in favor of Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. concerning EP 3 281 580. The court found that the inspection had been executed against a separate legal entity (Palo Alto Networks (Germany) GmbH) rather than against the named Defendant, and that the Applicant had breached its duty of candor by failing to inform the court of this material change in circumstances.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.
This is a rectification order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 2 October 2025 in patent infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. The court, on its own motion, corrected paragraph 6 of its earlier order dated 29 September 2025 to fix a clerical error and a calculation error, directing the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees paid, amounting to €14,400.
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.