European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 67 · 2,007 total
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 011 218 B1. In light of ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court suspended the file inspection proceedings by agreement of all parties until a party or the applicant requests resumption. The plaintiff's request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court decided a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim concerning European Patent EP 2 387 547 B1, which relates to a valve actuation device for a liquid treatment container. The court found that the patent was valid in amended form (auxiliary requests) and that the defendants' replacement filter cartridges infringed the patent, while rejecting the main revocation request. Injunctive relief, information orders, and damages were granted in modified form, with costs split 50/50 for the infringement action and 90/10 against the revocation counterclaim.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, relating to MediaTek's 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of its submission dated 15.08.2025, made in response to MediaTek Germany GmbH's request for production of license agreements under Rule 190. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, classifying certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, and restricted access to specified named persons on the defendant's side.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. – Withdrawal of Intervention Application v.Ex Parte
This order concerns an application by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. to withdraw their application to intervene in appeal proceedings between LAMA France and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, finding that Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an intervention application under Rule 313, and that no costs decision was necessary.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on August 21, 2025, rejecting the defendant's request to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a SEP infringement action concerning European Patent EP2380167. The defendant argued that the technical complexity of the MPEG-4 audio standard, the need to prepare a nullity counterclaim, the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations, international litigation coordination, and school holidays of key personnel justified an extension. The court held that the three-month deadline under Rule 23 RoP is already calibrated to accommodate such circumstances, including vacation periods, and that the defendant had been aware of the licensing demands since 2017.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, dated 21 August 2025, concerns Yealink's Request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese during an oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. Yealink, the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827, argued that interpretation was necessary because it is based in China and its representatives would have difficulty following the proceedings. The Court of Appeal denied the Request, holding that UPC proceedings are adversarial and commercial in nature, that parties must be represented by lawyers or patent attorneys familiar with the language of proceedings, and that the voluntary presence of company officials does not justify court-ordered interpretation.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), to deposit three physical objects (BB40A-C) as evidence in proceedings involving patent EP2432351. The claimant, HL Display AB, opposed the request as untimely. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, finding that BSRP provided no explanation for why the exhibits could not have been filed together with its rejoinder submitted on 20 February 2025.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in a revocation action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the revocation of Ballinno B.V.'s European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 and the subsequent settlement between the parties, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH requested the release of the security for procedural costs that Ballinno had previously deposited with the Court. Both parties consented to the release, and the Court ordered the transfer of the EUR 25,000 to Kinexon.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH and MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect the confidentiality of information contained in its submissions regarding license agreements and licensing negotiations. The court classified certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, restricted access to a limited number of named persons on the defendant side, and declined to decide on certain further requests at that stage.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, which relates to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on August 21, 2025, concludes the interim proceedings in a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim between Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) as plaintiff and two Omni-Pac entities as defendants. The court set out its preliminary view on the relevant skilled person, provided detailed feature breakdowns for patent claims 1 and 6, and issued preparatory directions for the oral hearing.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), requested to deposit two physical objects as exhibit BB38 to support positions taken in its rejoinder. The claimant opposed the request as untimely, and the court dismissed the application, finding that no adequate explanation was provided for why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected expert's application for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had declared expert's application for cost assessment inadmissible as time-barred under R. 151 RoP, having been filed more than one month after the main decision was served via the CMS. The Court of Appeal held that no preliminary reference to the CJEU was necessary, finding that the one-month deadline under R. 151 RoP is not disproportionate and does not violate Art. 69 UPCA or Art. 47 of the EU Charter.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against the respondents Lepu Medical entities, who raised both infringement and validity objections. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel under Art. 8(5) sentence 2 EPGÜ and R. 34 RoP, with the consent of all parties.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order concerns a Rule 333 review request by Centripetal Limited seeking to overturn the judge-rapporteur's refusal to allow a further written pleading introducing a fifth infringement reading in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, rejecting the request on grounds of procedural fairness, timing constraints, and the Claimant's failure to act promptly on functionalities it had known about for some time. Leave to appeal was not granted.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others
Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant Adeia Guides Inc. sought an extension due to late filing of exhibits 8 and 9 on 5 August 2025, to which the Walt Disney defendants did not object provided their subsequent deadlines were not shortened.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 849 157, in which Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., and Ninepoint GmbH) requested an extension of the time period for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. The court granted a partial extension of approximately one week, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the delayed access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1 (an agreement between the Claimant and its co-owner) warranted only a limited extension since the relevant assertions were already contained in the unredacted statement of claim.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a definitive correction order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, correcting a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) issued on July 25, 2025. The correction addressed a calculation error in paragraph 46 of the cost order, which had omitted the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200) awarded under paragraph 36, resulting in a corrected total of €43,856.64. The court also clarified that the correction order does not suspend or affect the appeal time limits under R. 221(1) RoP.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the separation of infringement proceedings. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 from those against Defendants 3 and 4, as service had been effected on Defendants 1 and 2 but not yet on Defendants 3 and 4, making it unreasonable to delay the proceedings against the served defendants.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)
This procedural order of the Local Division The Hague concerns a Rule 333 review of a Judge Rapporteur's order on preliminary objections raised by 15 Moderna entities in two infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. Moderna had challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, and long-arm jurisdiction over various defendants. The full panel confirmed the Judge Rapporteur's order and dismissed Moderna's request for interim appeal.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and Others v.Innovative Sonic Corporation (Application No. APP_33670/2025)
The defendants in a patent infringement action before the Munich Local Division of the UPC applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2765731 was granted. The claimant, Innovative Sonic Corporation, opposed the change. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, and dismissed the claimant's alternative request for oral hearings to be held in German.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The parties mutually requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which the court granted pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP. The claimant was ordered to inform the court within one week after 13 February whether the case is withdrawn or will resume.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2432351 owned by HL Display AB against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The order addressed several procedural matters including the appointment of a technical judge, use of visual aids, rescheduling of the oral hearing, and setting the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the claim and counterclaim.
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.