European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 73 · 2,185 total
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
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by six Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Local Division Paris confirming its jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage concerning EP 4 144 599. The Court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA — commercial link between defendants and same alleged infringement — were satisfied, as membership in the same group of companies can establish a commercial link and the alleg
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (China), VD Solutions GmbH (Germany), and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including limitation periods under Article 72 UPCA, the distinction between financial compensation claims (subject to a five-year limitation period) and injunctive relief (not subject to limitation), as well as questions of consent, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights. An oral hearing was held on May 19, 2026, and the judgment was rendered on June 22, 2026.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, while the Acer parties filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. Both parties subsequently sought to withdraw their respective claims and requests for partial refund of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawals of both the main infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered partial refunds of court fees in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag sought review of an ex parte order for preservation of evidence dated 17 April 2026, concerning European Patent EP3289139, against WEPA Nederland B.V. The defendant WEPA requested review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The single judge denied the review, finding that no obligation for employees to answer questions could be derived from the order, that the order adequately set a time limit for initiating proceedings on the merits, and that urgency was properly assumed given the digital nature of documents and the defendant's membership in a group of companies.
- ILLUMINA, INC. v.- Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
ORDER
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Düsseldorf Local Division's order rejecting Occlutech's application for provisional measures against Lepu, finding that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders infringe claim 1 of European Patent EP 1 998 686. The Court of Appeal held that a braiding made from a single wire that is cut during the manufacturing process qualifies as a 'braiding of thin wires or threads' within the meaning of the patent claim. Lepu was ordered to cease commercialization of the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day for breach.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
Decision
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Application for provisional measures
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Appeal RoP220.1
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for interim measures in a patent infringement dispute. Occlutech GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 686 relating to an occlusion instrument, appealed an order of the Local Division Düsseldorf dated 31 October 2025 in proceedings against Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing), which market competing occlusion devices called MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD. The appeal addressed issues including the absence of a party at the oral hearing, claim interpretation, and the admissibility of new facts and evidence in appeal proceedings.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures in the Milan Local Division of the UPC during ongoing main proceedings on the merits concerning EP 3 076 673 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that a mere increase in financial loss during ongoing proceedings is insufficient and that the applicant must demonstrate new, supervening factual circumstances indicating objective deterioration.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE, and others
This is a procedural order (R.105.5) issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent EP2590626. The order sets the value of the proceedings, addresses the admissibility of late-filed exhibits and submissions, orders the parties to focus their arguments for the oral hearing, and schedules the oral hearing for September 1, 2026.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in connection with ongoing main proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2727342 B1 related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. Ericsson argued urgency based on the delay of the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief at this late stage of the proceedings on the merits.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Infringement Action
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
Infringement Action
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
Infringement Action
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Counterclaim for revocation
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application For Costs
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
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.