European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 73 · 2,185 total
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between two competitors in the food processing machinery market. The plaintiff, Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent No. 3 106 035 relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device and a method for loading a food processing machine. The defendant, VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH, manufactures and distributes vacuum filling machines designated 'DPnx' and 'HPnx' featuring a receiving basket for a trolley that allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The patent, filed on 19 June 2015 and granted on 19 September 2018, had previously survived an opposition before the EPO Board of Appeal.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is an order issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2345029 owned by Orange SA. The order addresses procedural matters including the value of the dispute (set at 3 million euros), recoverable costs, confidentiality arrangements, and the organization of the upcoming oral hearing. The court scheduled a public hearing on 7 July for validity and infringement issues, followed by a non-public hearing on 8 July for non-technical matters.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning corrections to a prior decision dated May 6, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant sought eleven corrections to the earlier ruling, and the court granted eight of them while rejecting three, addressing issues ranging from the representation details in the header to substantive corrections in the reasoning regarding information claims and damages.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag NV, Janssen Biologics B.V., Janssen-Cilag B.V., Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen-Cilag SAS, Janssen-Cilag SpA, Janssen-Cilag A/S, Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag, Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda., Legend Biotech Corporation, Legend Biotech USA Inc. , Legend Biotech Ireland Limited, Legend Biotech Belgium BV
Counterclaim for revocation
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
Infringement Action
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Generic application
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
Counterclaim for revocation
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-12) under reference UPC_3F6FC747A3, Irdeto B.V. appeared in dispute with DJI Europe B.V.. et.al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This is a cost decision by the UPC Central Division (Milan) in which INSULET Corporation sought recovery of legal costs from EOFLOW Co. Ltd relating to EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), the appellate proceedings concerning EOFLOW's appeal against a penalty order (UPC_CoA_930/2025), and ancillary remedies. The court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, determining that the objective interest corresponded to the EUR 150,000 penalty at stake, with
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Generic Order
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-11) under reference UPC_0805AED25C, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
Infringement Action
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
Infringement Action
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) for an order requiring the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Defendants argued that the Claimant was a newly established litigation vehicle incorporated in Texas in March 2025, that it had no meaningful assets, and that enforcement of a cost award in Florida would be costly and uncertain. The Court addressed whether Florida's statutory requirements for recognizing foreign judgments justified ordering security, and whether the Claimant's asset structure warranted such an order.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
Infringement Action
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The order addresses requests by defendants to align procedural deadlines for lodging preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the alignment request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6's service conditions.
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Application for provisional measures
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
Infringement Action
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
Generic Order
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
Infringement Action
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 Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited GC Aesthetics Finance Limited Romed NV
Counterclaim for revocation
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.