European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 63 · 1,878 total
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.1. BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a preliminary objection filed by three BYD Group entities challenging the Paris Local Division's international jurisdiction in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2937706. The defendants domiciled in China and the United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, particularly because the Chinese defendants were not alleged to have committed any infringing act within the territory of an EU Member State. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that it has no international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU) who are not alleged to have committed infringing acts within EU territory.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-14) under reference UPC_6B42A85967, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 129 Samsung-Ro, Maetan-3dong, Yeong-tong-
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several entities of the SEB group, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201. The dispute concerns SEB's launch of the 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices, which includes an air frying mode, allegedly imitating SharkNinja's patented technology. The decision addresses the legal principle that lack of novelty may arise from implicit disclosure in prior art, where a person skilled in the art would objectively consider the result as necessarily implied.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited brought a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited concerning European Patent EP 4 185 356, which relates to a nasal cannula with a swivel connection. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) held that claim 1 as granted and its dependent claims lack novelty over prior art document D2, and that auxiliary request 1 also lacks novelty over D2 while auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity. The patent was revoked in its entirety, the application to amend was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
This decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1 and addresses the procedural interplay between cost decisions and subsequent appeal proceedings. The court clarified that under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure, a cost determination application must be filed within one month of the main proceedings decision. If a cost decision is rendered before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is later amended on appeal, the original cost decision loses its basis, and any amounts already reimbursed thereunder become recoverable as part of the costs in the post-appeal cost proceedings.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
This is an order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order records decisions taken at an interim conference held on 10 April 2026 in proceedings between Maxell (claimant/defendant in counterclaim) and multiple Samsung entities (defendants/claimants in counterclaim). The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim action at EUR 2,000,000, clarifies the parties' respective requests, and addresses pending objections relating to the de-facto-FRAND defence and new invalidity attacks.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses confidentiality and evidence production issues in patent infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order deals with Philips' application to reject TCL's confidentiality request and evidence production request, as well as Philips' own request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The matter involves competing confidentiality regimes proposed by both parties regarding licence-related information and commercially sensitive data exchanged during the proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
This case concerns a cost assessment proceeding related to European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., had originally sued the defendants for patent infringement, while the second defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent was revoked for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their attorney fees, travel costs, and court fees, based on a prior agreement between the parties.
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V
This order concerns a procedural application by the defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. based on European patent EP 3349412. The claimant agreed to the language change but requested three weeks to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and certain annexes, while the defendants requested two weeks. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language change to English and addressed the translation timeline.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 671 173. The appellant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought a stay of proceedings and security for costs against Microsoft Corporation in the context of a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal framework under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rules 158 and 295 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying who may request security for costs and under what circumstances such requests are admissible.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY v.- ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 AVENUE MICHELET, 93400, SAINT-, - ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, 1 ROBERT-BOSCH-PLATZ, 70839 GERLINGEN,
This procedural order concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Respondents (Robert Bosch entities) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 671 766. The Respondents sought interpretation from French into English and vice versa for the hearing scheduled on 27 April 2026, arguing that their representative lacked sufficient oral fluency in French. The Appellant (Valeo) contested the request and alternatively requested that the entire hearing be conducted in English. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation and ordered that the hearing be conducted in English, citing principles of procedural efficiency, flexibility, and fairness.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109 RoP in connection with appeals against orders of the Paris Central Division. The respondents (Robert Bosch entities) sought simultaneous French-English interpretation for the appeal hearing, while the appellant (Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage) opposed the request. The Court rejected the interpretation request and ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 251 983. The defendant had previously confirmed 8 December 2026 as its preferred hearing date, and the Court had already rejected a first postponement application. The Court addressed procedural expectations regarding timely responses to scheduling proposals and the standard for granting postponements once a date has been agreed.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing date in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 251 983. The Local Chamber Munich had proposed three hearing dates on February 13, 2026; the plaintiff responded within the deadline, but the defendant did not. The court set December 8, 2026 as the hearing date, which the defendant subsequently confirmed as its preferred date, before filing a second postponement request. The court rejected the request, holding that once a date is agreed upon, alternative dates are no longer reserved and postponement requires substantial grounds submitted with the request.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Wim Maas and David Mulder, at Taylor Wessing N.V., Parnassus v.increase in financial loss. Once infringement has commenced,, economic damage during the proceedings - without the injured
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in the Milan Local Division, seeking an injunction based on EP 3 076 673 B1 relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. The application was filed during ongoing main proceedings on the merits that had commenced in June 2024. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, finding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were nearing their final stages.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V 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.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-03-30) under reference UPC_87AB229EEB, The Claimant appeared in dispute with The Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of 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.