European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 73 · 2,185 total
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Application for provisional measures
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Generic Order
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
In this legal proceeding before Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division (decision issued on 2026-05-12) under reference UPC_BA5D0405D2, 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB appeared in dispute with EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
Application RoP262A
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Infringement Action
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Avient Protective Materials B.V. initiated a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group, comprising two Chinese companies, alleging infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) multifilament yarn. The claimant asserted infringement of three groups of claims concerning multifilament yarn, composite articles, and ballistic-resistant panels against the defendants' 'Xingi UD Fibers', 'Xingi UD Fabrics', and 'Xingi UD Panels' products. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Local Division The Hague under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Adobe's request for discretionary review of an order from the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned KEEEX SAS's infringement action based on patent EP 2 949 070, where Adobe sought dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC member states. The Court of Appeal found the request moot because the same legal question had already been conclusively settled in related proceedings on 13 March 2026.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
Infringement Action
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned whether the UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringements of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held that the request was without foundation because the fundamental legal question had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's earlier order of
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd 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.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
Application for provisional measures
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v.BARCO NV
Generic Order
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
Application for provisional measures
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
Infringement Action
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV regarding European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed the requirements of urgency and necessity for interim relief, particularly focusing on the applicant's burden to demonstrate timely knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the potential infringement. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on April 22, 2026, by a panel including the presiding judge Dr. Thom.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1, against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged patent infringement. The order, issued by the 2nd Panel of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, addresses the legal principles regarding urgency and the applicant's duty to act without undue delay in seeking interim relief. The court established guidelines on the burden of proof concerning the applicant's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the infringement.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications in a patent infringement dispute between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (claimant) and fifteen Moderna entities (defendants) concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1. The order primarily deals with GSK's Rule 176 application requesting that the Court order the in-person hearing of five party experts (two from GSK and three from Moderna) at the oral proceedings. Moderna opposes the application, arguing that the extensive written expert reports already provide sufficient technical background and that the decision to hear further expert evidence lies at the Court's discretion. The order also addresses preparations for the interim conference scheduled for 11 June 2026.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Infringement Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application on May 4, 2026, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in Stuttgart, in advance of a planned main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on May 6, 2026, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had previously been the subject of two other inspection proceedings and a pending counterclaim for revocation in a separate main action.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1 concerning a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer), brought a patent infringement action against Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the burden of substantiation for infringement claims relating to non-UPCA contracting states and the conditions under which a claimant is entitled to publication of the judgment. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on 19 March 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 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.