European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 67 · 2,007 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security for costs in the amount of €100,000 to MediaTek Germany GmbH within six weeks. The court found that, as Huawei is domiciled in China (outside the EU/EEA), enforcement of a cost decision would be significantly more difficult, justifying the requirement for security. The amount was set at half of the €200,000 statutory ceiling for reimbursable costs, since the other defendant, MediaTek, Inc., had not yet been served and was not participating in the proceedings.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (China), relating to the use of Remdesivir in treating MERS and SARS-COV-1 infections. The dispute centered on whether service of the statement of revocation on the patent's European representative (Lavoix) was valid and whether Gilead's request for default judgment was admissible. The Judge Rapporteur held that service was validly completed on 7 July 2025 when received by the patent representative in the CMS, declared the default judgment request inadmissible, and set 8 September 2025 as the deadline for the defendant to file a statement of defense.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai Ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 805 415. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) requested an extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defense from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, citing pending laboratory analyses of foil material relevant to prior art and prior use defenses. The plaintiff (Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.) opposed the extension. The court granted a one-week extension to September 16, 2025, finding the defendants' reasons partially justified but rejecting the longer extension as unnecessary.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This order concerns a request for rectification of a decision on costs issued on 21 July 2025 in proceedings involving patent EP 3 769 722. The Defendants sought rectification, arguing that the Court had omitted to expressly order the Claimant to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings. The Court dismissed the requests, holding that the original cost allocation (Defendants to reimburse 100% of the Claimant's costs in the infringement action and 75% in the counterclaim for revocation, without deduction for any share of the Defendants' costs) was a permissible and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and did not constitute an obvious slip.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The court granted the respondents' request to classify certain information as confidential but rejected their objection to allowing the applicant's managing director, Mr. Tor Peters, access to that information, finding that the applicant's interest in responding to arguments based on the confidential data outweighed the respondents' interest in restricting access.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action and associated revocation counterclaim regarding European Patent EP 2 133 289. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension of its deadline for filing its infringement reply, response to the revocation counterclaim, and any patent amendment request, citing mutual vacation absences and competing deadlines. The court partially granted the request, extending the deadline only to September 5, 2025, rather than the requested September 9, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend and conflicting with the scheduled interim hearing.
Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. regarding European patent EP 3 926 698. Seoul Viosys argued that the Central Division lacked competence under Article 33(4) UPCA because the patent was already subject to a parallel infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between the same parties pending before the Court of Appeal, contending that Emporia UK was a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Emporia UK was a straw company for ex-pert klein GmbH.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed the allocation of costs in provisional measures proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835, after the matter became moot between the applicant Faro Technologies and the second respondent Blankenhorn GmbH. Both parties agreed the proceedings were resolved, but disputed who should bear the costs. The court declared the proceedings terminated under Rule 360 RoP and ordered Blankenhorn GmbH to bear the costs, finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to seek court intervention and that Blankenhorn's cease-and-desist undertaking was insufficient.
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC (part of the Johnson & Johnson group) sought provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH, a German distributor of medical products, alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 689 262 relating to staple cartridges for surgical stapling devices. Cilag argued that Rivolution's distribution of infringing products from Bluesail Medical and David Medical, as well as its planned Bariatric Study using these products, constituted patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague, dismissed the application for provisional measures and ordered Cilag to pay EUR 80,000 in interim costs to Rivolution.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 651 838 relating to a self-locking glazing system, sued the Maars group of companies for allegedly infringing the patent with their 'Horizon Products' (demountable glass walls). Maars counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered City Glass to pay EUR 24,500 in legal costs and court fees to Maars.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, and Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd., for leave to change its claim under R. 263 RoP in an infringement action regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels. The Claimant sought to extend its equivalence argument from features 1.4 and 1.6 to also cover features 1.9 and 1.10, and to make corrections to main request II and add auxiliary request II.a. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
Faro Technologies withdrew its application for provisional measures against PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. concerning EP 4 001 835, and subsequently sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected the application, holding that Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP applies only to actions and not to applications for provisional measures, and that the fixed court fee for such applications is already significantly reduced.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG and Others (EP 1 697 604)
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 697 604. The Claimant (Decathlon) requested that the court disregard portions of the Defendants' rejoinder to the application to amend the patent, which contained arguments regarding the validity of the patent as granted. The court granted the request, holding that such content exceeded the permissible scope of a rejoinder under the Rules of Procedure, and informed the parties of its intention to close the written procedure on 1 September 2025.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns a dispute over the starting point of time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD) in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3407524. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, when the final confidentiality order was issued, but granted a three-week extension to account for the period during which Vivo voluntarily postponed access to the unredacted file at Sun Patent Trust's request. Vivo was ordered to file any PO by September 28, 2025, and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek. The court granted Defendant 2's (MediaTek Germany GmbH) application for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP, ordering Huawei to provide security of €150,000 within six weeks, finding that Huawei's declaration regarding service on its German subsidiary did not adequately address enforcement concerns in China.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB (Application for Access to Register) – NEC Corporation v.TCL Entities (EP 2 645 714)
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike, S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs. Dainese S.p.A. sought to restrict access to certain exhibits and information containing its financial data, while the defendants (Alpinestars entities and Motocard Bike) agreed to confidentiality but requested access for at least one natural person from their side. The Court established a confidentiality club including the defendants' UPC representatives and Ms. Caterina Buccimazza (General Counsel of Defendant 1), granted leave to appeal, and ordered a suspensive effect for the additional person's access.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_361/2025) involving European Patent EP3852468 owned by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities. The court addressed Vivo's request for clarification regarding the starting point of the time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD), following a contested confidentiality regime order. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, but granted a limited three-week extension, requiring Vivo to file any PO by September 28, 2025 and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthineers AG
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 352 431 B1 in infringement and revocation proceedings. The Defendants (Siemens entities) applied under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information regarding the design, components, and functioning of the attacked embodiments and certain exhibits. The Claimant (Hologic, Inc.) did not challenge the confidentiality of the information or object to the scope of the order, and the court granted the application.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP for its appeal against a Paris Local Division order that granted three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information (HCI) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose if the HCI were disclosed to the designated employees, given the existing confidentiality obligations and penalty provisions in the impugned order.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
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.