European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 73 · 2,185 total
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-01) under reference UPC_D574D5017B, Boa Technology Inc. appeared in dispute with Shinkyung Inc. et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
Infringement Action
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Infringement Action
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, sued VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary operating an energy recovery unit in Montbéliard) and MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the combustion cell) for infringement of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1. After the Central Division of Paris upheld the patent in modified form, the Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive proce
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1, owned by Hybridgenerator ApS, relating to a mobile hybrid generator system for delivering electrical power. The claimant, Hybridgenerator ApS, brought proceedings against HGSystem ApS, InfoTech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen (a former director of Hybridgenerator who is now associated with the defendant companies and is named as the inventor of the patent). The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds including sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that an invention is sufficiently disclosed only if the specification enables the skilled person to perform the invention without undue burden over the full scope of protection.
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action against numerous entities within the Geely corporate group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, Nokia requested, with the consent of the defendants, the admission of the withdrawal of the infringement action. The defendants in turn requested, with the consent of Nokia, the withdrawal of their invalidity counterclaim, with the matter concerning the admission of the withdrawal and the reimbursement of court fees.
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Application for provisional measures
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited filed an application for provisional measures, including a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction, against Dyson Technology Limited in connection with allegations of patent infringement relating to new haircare appliances, concerning EP3119235. During the oral hearing, the parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement covering all claims. The court confirmed the settlement, treated its details as confidential, permitted the w
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-28) under reference UPC_8B29C7AB44, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
Infringement Action
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
Infringement Action
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Application RoP262.1 (b)
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
Revocation Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al.
Infringement Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
Appeal RoP220.2
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This order concerns the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1. The plaintiff Brita SE had previously obtained a decision on April 16, 2026, finding indirect infringement by the defendant Wessper Sp. z o.o.'s filter cartridges and ordering the defendant to provide structured information about its infringing products. The present order, issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as Rapporteur, addresses procedural measures under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure to safeguard confidential information during the disclosure process.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application for security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action. BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) sued multiple BYD Group entities for infringement of European Patent EP2937706 before the Paris Local Division. BYD sought security for costs in the amount of EUR 400,000, arguing that BMSI is a financially empty shell similar to a non-practicing entity, with no publicly disclosed financial information or liquid assets. BMSI countered by proposing a reduced security amount of EUR 300,000 and a seven-week timeframe for provision.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-27) under reference UPC_44EB647500, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Cybex GmbH et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied for access to the case files of three related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, and UPC_CoA_19/2025) concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. had sued Belkin entities for patent infringement and Belkin had counterclaimed for revocation. Anker sought access to the written submissions and annexes, excluding confidential information, citing a parallel infringement action brought against it by Philips before the Local Division Munich. Philips did not oppose access to the technical arguments not subject to confidentiality orders, and Belkin raised no objections.
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
This is a procedural order (Rule 105 RoP) issued by the Rapporteur of the Central Division (Milan) in a nullity action concerning European Patent No. 2223589. The order records the outcome of a digital interim hearing held on 13 May 2026, addressing the plaintiff's representation, the value in dispute, procedural costs, and the preliminary admissibility of the nullity claim under Articles 47.6 and 73.4 EPGÜ and Rules 361–363 RoP. The court indicated it provisionally considers the action admissible and invited the parties to agree on the value in dispute and cost estimates ahead of the oral hearing.
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.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 778 423, owned by Grundfos Holding A/S, relating to a centrifugal pump unit, particularly a heating circulation pump unit. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of 8 May 2025 concerning infringement and a counterclaim for invalidity. The Court of Appeal addressed whether submissions concretized on appeal were new, the interpretation of patent claims in light of the prior art, and the relevance of the procedural language for claim construction.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.a. sued Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) before the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) for infringement of European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1 concerning a motorcycle tyre with both on-road and off-road performance. SYR counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent valid, and held that SYR had infringed the patent by offering and marketing its Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyres at the EICMA 2024 trade fair and through its website.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson - Ericsson Holding International B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Infringement Action
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.