European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 63 · 1,878 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1, following infringement proceedings in which the court found partial infringement of claim 14 and ordered costs to be borne 30% by the Claimant and 70% by the Defendant. The Claimant sought reimbursement of costs from both the preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings and the main proceedings, arguing that the cost ceilings should be combined. The court held that PI proceedings and main proceedings have separate cost ceilings, that costs cannot be shifted between the two, and that in cases of partial success, the ceiling must be reduced proportionally to the success rate.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH. et. al.
This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Alpinestars before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an order of the Milan Local Division that separated proceedings concerning two European patents (EP '364 and EP '117). After the Local Division amended its impugned order and granted leave to appeal, Alpinestars withdrew its request for discretionary review. The Court of Appeal declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Alpinestars.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l.,KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 27 January 2026 in consolidated proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025. The order addresses procedural matters including the exploration of settlement, clarification of the Claimant's conditional auxiliary requests filed under R. 30.1 RoP, the admissibility of late-filed technical drawings (Annexes 27/28–33/34), and the parties' agreement on the use of a specific equivalence criterion from a prior UPC decision. The Court deemed the late-filed annexes admissible while reserving judgment on their relevance, and confirmed that the auxiliary requests would only be assessed if the counterclaim for revocation is upheld.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA. a. o.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1. Nanoval had previously filed an infringement action against ALD France's parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH) at the Munich Local Division, where the parent had already filed a nullity counterclaim. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that ALD France lacked a separate interest in filing its own nullity action. The court held that a subsidiary's own business activity establishes an independent interest in filing a nullity action, and that related companies are not automatically the 'same party' under Article 33(4) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement merely because one is the parent of the other.
Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l, Amazon EU S.a.r.l., Amazon Media EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc. Amazon.com Services LLC v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS
1 ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM Pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 26 January 2026 KEYWORDS - Change of the language of the proceedings – Art. 49 (5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This order from the Court of Appeal addresses a request under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the confidentiality of information in written pleadings or evidence. The Court clarified that only Rule 262A RoP permits restricting the opposing party's use of confidential information, and that a Rule 262.2 request does not automatically grant provisional protection against disclosure. The Court further explained the proper procedure for confidentiality orders, including the requirement to file a simultaneous Rule 262A application when lodging confidential documents, and noted that documents uploaded under HC code without a legal basis will routinely be reclassified to M code to ensure access by the other parties.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and APPLE Inc. (intervener)
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The Court addressed the proportionality of measures protecting confidential information, balancing the right to an effective remedy and fair trial against the interests of parties and third parties. Key issues included whether employees of a party should be granted access to confidential information, the treatment of licence agreement information, and the liability framework for breaches of confidentiality obligations.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B.
This Final Order of the Court of Appeal concerns an application for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (as appellant/claimant) and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. (as respondents/defendants, jointly 'ASUS'). The Court addressed the proportionality of confidentiality measures, particularly regarding access to confidential information by employees of the parties and the application of an 'External Eyes Only' regime. The Court established that employees of a party should generally be granted access to confidential information, subject to appropriate judicial control, and that potential harm to third parties from licensing-related confidential information may be mitigated by barring the employee from involvement in licensing negotiations for a defined period.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendant, Nordmeccanica S.p.A., to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited based on European patent EP3067437. The Defendant argued that neither party has a business connection with Germany, that English is the prominent language in the relevant technical field, and that the change would promote procedural economy. The Claimant did not submit additional comments on the merits of the application.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 29 August 2025, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989 under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, but the Registrar rejected it as filed outside the one-year transition period from the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The President held that the one-year time limit in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules is not discriminatory and dismissed the petition.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 and involves a dispute between Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. (applicant) and Inverquark Deutschland GmbH and Inverquark GmbH (respondents). The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the respondents' trade fair stand at 'Aquanale Köln' on October 30, 2025. After initially indicating they would seek review of that order, the respondents withdrew that intention and instead requested the appointment of a supplementary expert opinion and the release of the detailed description prepared by the court-appointed expert.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE DE PROCEDURE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 21 janvier 2026 APPELANTE ET DEMANDERESSE A L’ACTION EN CONTREFAÇON DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE INSTANCE VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY CEDEX, FRANCE (ci-après dé
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl,
Nagravision Sàrl filed an infringement action against Pinterest entities based on EP 3965466. The Pinterest defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the domiciliation of the parties and the need for efficient coordination among multiple defendants. The order addressed the application for language change and the question of whether existing pleadings and documents should be translated.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 UPC_CFI_369/2025 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 16/01/2026 EN-TETE : 1. Le brevet européen devenu unitaire et modifié de manière inconditionnelle, prend effet à la date de d
1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.1) Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., c/ Larrano 7, San Lorenzo de El Escorial
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a reimbursement request filed by the Claimant after the closure of infringement proceedings. The court declared the request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees inadmissible, finding that the case had been closed, no request for reopening had been filed, the claimant had forfeited its right by stating no cost decision was needed, and the application was filed almost two months after closure. Leave to appeal was
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED (2) NAGOR LIMITED (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS (6) EUROSILICONE SAS (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH (9) GC AESTHE v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The defendant failed to file a Defence to revocation within the two-month time period and did not respond to the action in any way. The claimant requested a decision by default, arguing that the patent should be revoked for extension of claim 1 beyond the application as filed, lack of novelty over prior art and public prior use, and lack of inventive step. The Court considered the conditions for a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
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.