European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 54 · 1,592 total
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order clarifying confidentiality obligations in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ona Patents SL and Google Ireland Limited. The court explicitly classified certain contract documents and internal company information as confidential under UPCA rules. This decision reinforces the strict handling requirements for sensitive commercial data within the unified patent litigation framework, ensuring that proprietary information is protected during the legal process.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued a confidentiality order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, Ona Patents SL, restricting access to sensitive exhibits and documents. Crucially, the court also prevented the disclosure of this confidential information to parallel national proceedings, setting a strong precedent for maintaining secrecy within UPC litigation.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co.,Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement case involving Ecovacs and Papst Licensing, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for deadline extensions by one of the defendants. The court ultimately rejected the motion, finding that the defendant's primary motivation was procedural simplification rather than an urgent need to prepare its defense. This decision highlights the Court's focus on balancing procedural efficiency with the claimant's interests in maintaining timely proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC case involved Oerlikon Textile asserting infringement of EP2145848 against Himson Engineering, while Himson counter-sued for revocation. After extensive proceedings, including an Oral Hearing, both parties reached a transactional agreement to terminate the dispute. The Court formally accepted the withdrawal applications under Rule 265 ROP, declaring the case closed and confirming that legal costs would be mutually compensated.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In this procedural matter, TCL EUROPE SAS sought a two-week extension to respond to the Defence to Revocation and Application to Amend filed by Corning Incorporated in relation to EP 3 296 274. The Claimant argued that extensive technical testing related to prior art attacks necessitated more time. However, the UPC Court rejected the request, emphasizing that while complexity exists, the RoP provides sufficient time for patent cases, and the burden of proving 'special circumstances' justifying an extension rests heavily on the requesting party.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving HMD Global Oy and Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. The Court ruled in favor of HMD Global, granting its request to change the court language from German to English (the patent grant language). The ruling underscores the importance of considering the defendant's operational needs and ability to coordinate internally when balancing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This procedural order in the UPC case involving KEEEX SAS against major tech players like Adobe and OpenAI addresses critical timing issues. The court aligned all defendants' deadlines to ensure fair administration of justice, recognizing the complexity and high stakes of the infringement action. Furthermore, it granted an exceptional four-week extension for filing defenses, allowing parties adequate time to address the extensive claims and technical details.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, aligning with the patent's grant language. The Claimant did not object, and the Court granted the request based on fairness considerations, noting that the parties are internationally active and the technical field uses English predominantly. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in managing procedural logistics while ensuring fair access to justice for all involved.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed Ona Patents SL to withdraw its infringement action against Apple Inc., and simultaneously permitted the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. The court confirmed that since all parties had reached an agreement regarding cost allocation (each party bearing its own costs), no formal cost decision was required under the Rules of Procedure. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can streamline litigation, even when complex infringement and validity issues are involved.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and various Renault entities. The Court granted the request, citing fairness grounds, the international nature of the parties, and the predominant use of English in the relevant technical field. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC regarding procedural language when supported by objective circumstances.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Sintec S.R.L./Value Med S.R.L., concluding an earlier application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 646 825 B1. While the settlement itself was confirmed, the Court rejected Edwards' request to reimburse court fees based on a misapplication of procedural rules. This case highlights the finality and binding nature of settlements within the UPC framework.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation; Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.; Xiaomi Inc.; Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.; Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH; Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S.; Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.; Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB; Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
In a procedural order within the UPC case UPC_CFI_609/2025, UERAN Technology LLC (Claimant) is pursuing infringement against various Xiaomi entities. The court granted a motion filed by one of the defendants, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, to establish a unified deadline regime for all parties involved in the litigation. This ruling streamlines the complex procedural landscape, addressing issues related to service and seasonal delays, which is crucial for efficient UPC case management.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics sought provisional measures—specifically an inspection and evidence preservation order—against Roborock (HK) in the UPC, alleging infringement of its robot localization patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The claimant argued that Roborock's vacuum cleaners utilized the patented technology. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain urgent evidence preservation orders in UPC proceedings.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA; IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Belparts Group N.V. sought to consolidate its current infringement action with a parallel counterclaim pending before the Central Division Paris, arguing for consistent application of UPC law. Although IMI consented to the consolidation, the Local Division Munich dismissed the request. The Court found that since the proceedings were lodged in different divisions (Local vs. Central), the statutory requirement under R. 302.3 RoP was not satisfied.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
In this procedural order within the UPC infringement case (UPC_CFI_610/2025), UERAN Technology LLC successfully petitioned for a unified and streamlined timeline. The court granted the request, which aimed to prevent delays caused by incomplete service of process on all defendants, including those in China. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility and party cooperation as key drivers for efficient litigation within the UPC framework.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This procedural order addressed the validity of service in a revocation action concerning Remdesivir (EP3854403). The claimant sought a default judgment after alleging improper service on the defendant. The UPC ruled that service was validly completed upon receipt by the patent representative, clarifying that foreign headquarters do not invalidate internal CMS service procedures. Consequently, the request for a default judgment was dismissed, and the case remains active.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC costs case, the court addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH for Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security due to its non-EU domicile. While acknowledging enforcement difficulties against Chinese entities, the Local Chamber of Mannheim ultimately ruled that security was necessary. Crucially, the court reduced the demanded amount from €239,000 to €100,000, basing this decision on established cost limits and the complex structure of the litigation involving multiple defendants.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In this UPC infringement case, the claimant sought to enforce EP 3 805 415 against Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for offering and distributing metal plates. The defendants requested an extension of time to file their defense due to ongoing laboratory analysis of material samples. The Local Division granted a one-week extension, recognizing the need for thorough preparation, but denied requests for further delays, setting clear boundaries on procedural flexibility.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a procedural order concerning solar technology patents, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay to both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made because the parties are actively negotiating a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding the disputed patent EP 4 372 829. The Court also ensured that if the proceedings resume, all deadlines will be reset, providing procedural certainty while allowing time for commercial resolution.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of claim amendments under Rule 263 RoP. CeraCon GmbH sought to amend its counterclaim for revocation by introducing a new ground of invalidity based on prior art (EP’480). The court denied this request, emphasizing that parties must demonstrate reasonable diligence in their prior art searches. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements governing claim amendments within UPC proceedings.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action involving EP 1 998 686 B2, the court addressed a motion regarding the protection of confidential information. The Lokalkammer Düsseldorf granted the request to classify specific data as trade secrets under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262A VerfO. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant's CEO must be granted access to this sensitive information, despite objections from the defendants who feared competitive disadvantage.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a Preliminary objection raised by the patent holder, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., arguing that the revocation action lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was acting as a 'straw company' for another party involved in parallel infringement proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this argument, emphasizing that coordinated litigation strategies alone do not equate to a straw company structure. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to successfully challenge standing or jurisdiction based on corporate relationships within the UPC framework.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH; Keysight Technologies, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the allowance of further written pleadings in an infringement action. Centripetal Limited sought to introduce evidence concerning a newly released infringing product (AI Stack) by requesting a discretionary review of the CFI's rejection. The court ultimately denied the request, prioritizing the principle of expeditious proceedings and finding that Centripetal's delay in filing was a relevant factor. This ruling reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH sought an extension of deadlines related to its infringement claim against Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 133 289. The court partially granted the request, setting a new deadline for various pleadings until September 5, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's strict procedural adherence, where extensions must be calculated carefully to avoid conflicts with subsequent hearing dates and rules regarding weekend extensions.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France
In this UPC case, City Glass sued Maars for infringing its patent covering a unique self-locking glazing system. The Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding that the alleged use of Horizon Products did not constitute infringement under EP 1651838. Crucially, the court also rejected Maars' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. This decision highlights the high bar for proving both infringement and invalidity in UPC proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
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.