European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 54 · 1,592 total
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.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's application to change its infringement claims regarding a swivel locking device for strollers (EP 1 905 615). The Claimant sought to modify claim language, primarily by altering how components were allocated between the 'seat' and the 'base' of the wheel bearing assembly. While the court found that the proposed extension of equivalence arguments was not fundamentally changing the targeted structure, it ultimately denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning court fees following the withdrawal of an interim measure claim. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought a partial refund of legal costs after withdrawing its action against one respondent. The Mannheim Local Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that the relevant fee reimbursement rules are designed for full lawsuits and do not apply to applications for provisional measures. This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict procedural boundaries governing cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, Kaufland Marketplace GmbH, Lidl Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request to disregard parts of the Defendants' rejoinder regarding patent validity. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), ruling that submissions must not exceed the scope permitted for the specific pleading stage. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural discipline within the UPC framework, preventing parties from introducing extraneous arguments or summaries outside the prescribed written procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division granted requests from all parties to harmonize timelines and service dates in an infringement action concerning EP 2 936 439. The court accepted the agreement to set uniform service dates for all defendants and extended deadlines for filing defenses and replies. This decision underscores the UPC's flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently when parties mutually agree on procedural adjustments.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical timing issue in an infringement action concerning EP3407524, specifically regarding the commencement of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense. The Court confirmed that the final confidentiality regime established the procedural starting point, despite subsequent appeals. Recognizing the parties' voluntary cooperation on information access, the Judge-rapporteur granted a strictly limited extension to ensure fair trial rights while maintaining procedural efficiency.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A, Motocard Bike, S.L., Omnia Retail S.R.L.
This UPC decision addressed a confidential information dispute within a larger security for costs proceeding, rather than an infringement claim. Dainese sought to restrict access to its financial data, citing trade secret protection under Article 58 UPCA. The Court ultimately found a balance between protecting the claimant's sensitive information and ensuring the defendants could adequately exercise their right of defense. Access was granted to specific individuals, including Ms. Caterina Buccimazza, subject to strict confidentiality obligations.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical dispute over the starting date of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense in an infringement action. The Court confirmed that prior agreements regarding confidentiality regimes establish the effective start date, despite subsequent appeals. While maintaining strict adherence to procedural efficiency, the judge-rapporteur granted a limited three-week extension based on the parties' voluntary compliance with information sharing requests.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 669. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and had not been properly withdrawn, thus stripping the UPC of jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements for withdrawing an opt-out. The ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient, even without explicit proof of a power of attorney from the proprietor.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Sun Patent Trust against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The dispute centered on restricting access to highly confidential information (HCI) within ongoing infringement proceedings involving Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court ultimately rejected the request, finding that even if HCI was disclosed, the appeal would not become devoid of purpose because it addresses both access and usage conditions for the sensitive data.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 399. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an opt-out had not been validly withdrawn, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. This ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient for withdrawal, even without explicit proof of representation authority.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process in linked proceedings. The Claimant sought to serve the main infringement action on the Defendant's representative who had handled provisional measures, arguing that the link between the cases mandated this. However, the Court ruled that representation is not automatically transferable across different types of proceedings, even if they are related by Rule 213.1 RoP. Consequently, service must be conducted through formal international channels (Hague Convention) due to the Defendant's foreign seat.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In a complex infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 011 218 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order suspending the proceedings. This decision was made at the request and agreement of all involved parties, who are currently engaged in parallel settlement discussions. The suspension allows the parties to pursue a negotiated resolution without immediate judicial intervention.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
This UPC decision addresses both infringement and revocation claims concerning EP 2 387 547 B1. While the court provided extensive legal guidance on patent scope, exhaustion, and indirect infringement, it ultimately found the defendants liable for damages due to infringement. Despite this finding of liability, the main lawsuit was dismissed, indicating a complex outcome where remedies were granted but the overall claim failed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an intervention application filed by LIFE 365 in a complex infringement and revocation case involving LAMA France and HPDC. The court ruled that because the main procedure had already been closed following the parties' agreement, the request for withdrawal was valid. This ruling clarifies the procedural mechanism for withdrawing interventions when the underlying litigation has concluded.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
In this UPC case involving a SEP dispute over Android technology, the respondent sought an extension of the reply period citing complex technical and FRAND defense requirements. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the existing procedural deadlines are already designed to accommodate the complexities of international patent litigation. This decision reinforces the principle that parties must manage their timelines effectively within the UPC's structured framework.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
In this appeal concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled against Yealink's application. The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is important, the adversarial nature of UPC proceedings means such requests must be highly justified. The ruling clarifies that general difficulties faced by non-native speakers or company officials do not automatically mandate court-ordered translation services.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In this procedural order, HL Display AB opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to deposit physical objects related to the infringement case EP2432351. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application. The court found that BSRP failed to provide a sufficient justification for filing these exhibits late, leading to the rejection of their procedural motion.
Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application regarding confidentiality during appeal proceedings. Kodak, the appellant, sought a new confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, citing the need to protect trade secrets in its grounds of appeal. The UPC ruled that since the original CFI orders explicitly stipulated their continuation into appellate stages, the requests for a new regime were superfluous and dismissed.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.BALLINNO B.V.
In this procedural order stemming from a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed the release of security for legal costs. Following a settlement agreement between Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH and BALLINNO B.V., the court granted the application to transfer the €25,000 security deposit from the defendant to the claimant. This decision highlights how procedural mechanisms can be adapted when parties reach an amicable resolution during litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for rectification filed by Microsoft following a default judgment issued against Suinno. Microsoft sought to amend the decision to include a notice (R. 356.3 RoP) warning that any subsequent default would be final. The Court rejected this application, emphasizing that the subject matter of appeal proceedings is strictly limited to what was requested by the parties. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must be raised within the scope of the initial litigation or appeal.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH; expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters following an oral hearing in a complex infringement and revocation case. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., attempted to submit additional written arguments after the proceedings concluded. The Court firmly ruled that once the oral phase is complete, the matter is ready for judgment, and further submissions are generally inadmissible unless explicitly permitted by the court under strict rules.
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.