European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 54 · 1,592 total
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.
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.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG initiated infringement proceedings against Inventronics GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC. However, recognizing that both parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions, the court issued an order suspending the entire case. This decision allows the parties to resolve their dispute outside of litigation while maintaining the legal status quo.
expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning a cost determination following the revocation of a patent. The claimant, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, challenged the procedural deadlines set out in the Rules of Procedure (VerfO), arguing they conflicted with the European Patent Convention (EPÜ). However, the court rejected the request for admission to appeal, concluding that the legal questions raised had already been settled by prior rulings. This case reinforces the established procedural framework within the UPC and limits the scope for seeking preliminary interpretations from the CJEU on internal UPC procedures.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a final written brief in an ongoing infringement action. The claimant sought to introduce a substantially new functionality reading late in the proceedings. The Panel ruled that allowing such a late submission would violate procedural fairness and compromise the preparation time for the upcoming oral hearing, thereby maintaining the original rejection order.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.; Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich separated an infringement action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. against four Chinese defendants. The separation was necessitated by differing service timelines for the defendants, allowing proceedings to continue against two parties while awaiting service on the remaining two. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex multi-defendant cases under the UPC framework.
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 procedural order addressed a request by multiple defendants (ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time limit for filing their statement of defence. The extension was sought because they required access to an unredacted exhibit related to the claimant's entitlement to assert the patent-in-suit. The court partially granted the request, finding that a short extension was justified to compensate for the delay in accessing minor evidence, while rejecting demands for a full extension.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
In a procedural order concerning an infringement claim, Adeia Guides Inc. successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for a deadline extension. The request was made due to late-filed exhibits in the ongoing litigation against various Disney entities. This ruling ensures that both parties have adequate time to respond to complex legal filings in this high-stakes patent dispute.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC decision addressed a request for improvement regarding the costs awarded in an earlier proceeding. The court found and corrected a clear arithmetic error in the calculation of the total costs payable by the respondent. While affirming the principle that R. 353 RoP is limited to factual/mathematical corrections, the ruling successfully adjusted the financial outcome based on the identified mistake.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna addressed extensive jurisdictional challenges raised by the large group of Moderna entities. Moderna argued that several subsidiaries lacked sufficient domicile or connection to the UPC territory for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court rejected these objections, confirming its competence based on established connectivity principles (e.g., co-defendants in the same country). This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings concerning Spikevax.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving major mobile technology players. The Court granted the request to switch from German to English, aligning with the patent's granted language. This ruling emphasizes that fairness and the operational realities of multinational defendants—who communicate internationally in English—must be weighed heavily against local court preferences.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for seeking suspensive effect in patent litigation. The court ruled that an application for a stay of proceedings is inadmissible if it is filed before the formal Statement of appeal has been lodged and the associated fees paid. This ruling reinforces the principle that legal interest must be established through proper appellate procedure, even when urgency is claimed.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V.; Troy Chemie GmbH; Azelis Group N.V.; Azelis SA; Azelis Netherlands B.V.; Azelis Benelux
In a recent procedural order, the UPC granted a stay to an infringement action involving AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC and several defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. The parties mutually requested the pause of proceedings until February 13, 2026. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex litigation timelines, allowing both claimant and defendant time to prepare or resolve underlying issues before proceeding with the infringement claims.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in patent litigation. The claimant, Sun Patent Trust, sought to suspend an order from the Court of First Instance before formally lodging its appeal. The court ruled that even under provisions allowing for extreme urgency, a formal Statement of appeal and payment of fees are prerequisites for such an application to be admissible. This ruling reinforces the procedural rigor required when challenging interim decisions within the UPC framework.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This UPC appeal case concerned RiVOLUTiON GmbH's attempt to suspend an injunction issued by the Local Court Munich against it. Rivolution argued that the original decision contained evident legal errors regarding procedural fairness, damages, and enforcement security. The Appeals Chamber ruled that most of these alleged errors could not be assessed without reviewing the detailed grounds of the initial judgment. Consequently, the request for suspension was denied, meaning the injunction remains in effect until further appeal.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
HL Display AB initiated an infringement action against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. concerning patent EP2432351. This procedural order sets the stage for the main trial by rescheduling the oral hearing to August 22, 2025, and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both sides. The parties agreed on all procedural points, including the appointment of a technical judge.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the release of security for legal costs following a settlement agreement. Ballinno B.V., who had provided €25,000 in security, successfully petitioned the court to have this amount released and transferred to Kinexon Sports GmbH. The ruling confirms that even when not explicitly covered by the rules, procedural provisions can be applied analogously to facilitate the conclusion of litigation.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Dolby International AB to submit an additional written statement concerning the FRAND objection raised by Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found that granting this request was necessary for fairness and ensuring all parties had a full opportunity to address complex arguments regarding standard essential patents (SEPs). This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines, particularly when dealing with intricate FRAND defenses.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully sought provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC action concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling was significant for establishing jurisdiction over international companies operating through EU Authorized Representatives, confirming that these representatives can act as 'anchor defendants' under Brussels I rules. This decision provides clarity on how IP rights holders can enforce their patents against global supply chains anchored by local intermediaries. The case underscores the practical application of cross-border legal principles within the UPC framework, particularly regarding product safety regulations and distribution networks.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses the release of a security deposit provided by the applicant in a cost dispute. The Court ruled that when parties reach an inter partes settlement regarding legal costs, the security can be transferred to the beneficiary to finalize the matter. This ruling clarifies the practical application of procedural rules concerning financial guarantees and settlements within the UPC framework.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully obtained provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC case concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling is highly significant as it leverages EU product safety regulations to establish international jurisdiction over non-EU manufacturers, using their Authorized Representative (AR) as an 'anchor defendant.' This decision strengthens the enforcement power of the UPC by making ARs liable for injunctions.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. concerns the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering systems for monitoring food waste in commercial kitchens. The Court of First Instance delivered a detailed ruling on the merits, addressing both infringement claims and procedural applications. Notably, the court imposed significant cost obligations on Winnow Solutions Limited while also providing guidance on cost allocation in cases involving partial revocation.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
In a significant decision regarding generic drug competition, the UPC Court of Appeal granted provisional measures in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim against Zentiva. The court held that the completion of national health technology assessments and reimbursement procedures for generics can constitute an imminent infringement threat, even before market launch. This ruling reinforces the proactive nature of the UPC's jurisdiction across all member states, providing a strong deterrent against premature generic entry.
Moderna, Inc. v.Genevant Sciences GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving Moderna and Genevant Sciences, the Court addressed a procedural application seeking an extension of time to file responses following extensive confidentiality proceedings (R.262A). The Judge-rapporteur ruled that while extensions are generally viewed narrowly, the delay in accessing unredacted confidential information justified a limited extension for the claimants. This decision reinforces the balance between maintaining the UPC's swift procedural timeline and ensuring parties have adequate time to prepare their defense against complex claims.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. addresses the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering food waste monitoring systems. The court provided detailed rulings on cost allocation in complex litigation scenarios involving partial revocation. The judgment is significant for practitioners as it clarifies the financial consequences when a patent's validity is only challenged or upheld partially.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning surfing technology (EP 2 728 089 B1). The Court meticulously defined which technical details within the defense statements and briefs must be classified as confidential. This ruling reinforces the strict confidentiality protocols available under the UPC framework, ensuring that sensitive commercial information remains protected during litigation.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH / Cisco Systems, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the extension of deadlines in an ongoing infringement case involving Cisco and Lionra Technologies Ltd., relating to EP 2 201 740. The core issue was balancing the need for adequate time for Cisco to respond, given late access to confidential information, against the urgency required by Lionra. The Court ultimately granted a two-week extension, allowing the appeal process to continue.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the Düsseldorf Local Court, the UPC addressed the language of proceedings for infringement case UPC_CFI_496/2025. Headwater Research LLC is suing Samsung Electronics entities over patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested that the court switch the procedural language to English, matching the language of the granted patent. The Court accepted this request, ensuring the case will proceed in English.
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.