European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 73 · 2,185 total
AMBAFLEX INTERNATIONAL B.V. v.***
Ambaflex International B.V. filed a nullity action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court seeking full revocation of European patent EP 2743216 B1 with effect in CH/LI, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, PL, and RO. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, and Ambaflex withdrew its nullity claim. The defendant accepted the withdrawal, and the court recorded the withdrawal, declared the case closed, and noted the parties' agreement that each would bear its own costs.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al
Infringement Action
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. et al
Infringement Action
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Revocation Action
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Infringement Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) ruled on BYD's application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in an infringement action concerning EP3393001. The court ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) to provide security of EUR 350,000 for BYD's legal costs and expenses, to be furnished within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued under Rule 355 RoP.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7C0E224273, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. et al
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4344633 against multiple defendants including Sinocare Inc. and various Menarini and Obelis entities. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and seeking to limit jurisdiction to UPC Contracting Member States. The judge-rapporteur deferred the decision on the preliminary objection to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, noting that the objection could not lead to complete dismissal and that relevant case law was still evolving.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP), in which the claimant La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. filed an application under Rule 262a of the Rules of Procedure seeking protection of confidential information contained in exhibit MW21. The claimant submitted MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to demonstrate 'concern by the patent' under Article 47.6 UPCA, and requested that access to the unredacted version be restricted to the Court, the Registry, the claimant's representatives, and the defendants' representatives on an 'attorneys' eyes only' basis. The defendants opposed the application, requesting broader access including external Indian counsel and external experts.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7EEE0670ED, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o.
Infringement Action
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1903733. After the Defendant filed its defence along with an application to amend the patent, and the Claimant filed its reply, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-18) under reference UPC_7A69536D4E, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB appeared in dispute with Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Robert Bosch France SAS and others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of an upcoming oral hearing in an appeal (UPC-CoA-50/2026) related to patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants, a group of Robert Bosch entities, requested that the oral hearing scheduled for 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, or alternatively that their representative be permitted to speak in English. The respondent, Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage, consented to the main request. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral hearing proceedings be conducted in English, without changing the official language of the appeal proceedings.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
Appeal RoP220.2
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in appeal case UPC-CoA-50/2026 concerning patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants (several Robert Bosch entities) appealed an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction and language of procedure in an infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage. The Court of Appeal ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing scheduled for May 26, 2026 would
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
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.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This order concerns Huawei's application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich regarding inspection of case file documents. Quinn Emanuel had sought access to pleadings filed in terminated infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek, which the Rapporteur initially granted subject to redaction. After Huawei challenged this, the Local Division confirmed the Rapporteur's amended decision and found Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded, without allowing appeal. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912. After the Defendant filed its Defence together with an Application to amend the patent, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. concerning EP 1903733 on 7 April 2026. Before service on the Defendant, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action on 23 April 2026, stating no party would seek a cost decision and requesting partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees (EUR 13,250) to the Claimant.
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.
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.