European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 67 · 2,007 total
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Both parties agreed on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and that the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation should be heard together. The Court scheduled an interim conference for 22 January 2026 and an oral hearing for 25 March 2026.
[Claimant name redacted] v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was brought before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 875 923 B1, owned by Essetre Holding spa, which relates to a machine for machining walls. The claimant alleged lack of novelty and inventive step based on prior art documents. The defendant submitted a principal request to amend the patent, which the court found admissible and compliant with the requirements of the European Patent Convention.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, and Roborock International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants requested extensions of deadlines for filing their opposition, statement of defense, and counterclaim for revocation, with the claimant's consent. The presiding judge granted the extensions, setting the opposition deadline to August 26, 2025, and the defense/counterclaim deadlines to October 27, 2025.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Seoul Viosys following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 2661892. The Paris Central Division had previously ordered the transfer of the revocation action to the Paris Local Division and directed Photon Wave to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys' legal costs for the preliminary objection proceedings. The Court held the application admissible but only partly well-founded, setting the value of the preliminary objection proceedings at one quarter of the revocation action's value (EUR 500,000) and rejecting the expert costs claim, ultimately ordering Photon Wave to reimburse Seoul Viosys EUR 11,200.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought penalty payments against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with a saisie (evidence preservation) order at Palo Alto's Munich office in connection with European Patent EP 3 281 580. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Palo Alto had no obligation to increase access rights for sales personnel or to set up technical systems not physically present at the premises, as the inspection order was limited to items found at the specified location.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a costs procedure decision from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimants sought €92,814.62 in costs following a successful infringement action, but the court awarded only €41,656.64, applying the standard ceiling of €38,000 for representation costs due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies. The court addressed key issues including the timeliness of requests to increase the cost ceiling, the burden of proof for claimed costs, and the scope of recoverable representation costs.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear TRUMPF's infringement action and IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to allow a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel for both validity and infringement questions.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_28067/2025, UPC_CoA_521/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 27 March 2025, relying on a certificate from an Italian patent litigation course completed at Politecnico Milano. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the transitional period is not subject to extension or exception, and that the clerical error and equity arguments did not justify re-establishment of rights.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
Hanshow Germany GmbH filed a nullity action against EP 3 883 277 before the Central Division (Paris) of the Unified Patent Court, which it subsequently withdrew. After the Central Division ordered Hanshow to bear the court costs, Hanshow appealed that cost decision. Before the Court of Appeal, Hanshow then withdrew its appeal and requested 60% reimbursement of its procedural costs under Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, to which VusionGroup consented. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the 60% reimbursement.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on July 24, 2025, concerning European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants (Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC) requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own expense to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge granted permission for the interpreters to participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the courtroom, but otherwise rejected the application.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (Petition for Review APL_15506/2025)
The applicant sought entry on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a CEIPI diploma in 'Patent Litigation in Europe' obtained in July 2022. The Registrar rejected the application as filed out of time, and the applicant petitioned for review, arguing there was 'de facto continuity' between the unaccredited course under Rule 12 EPLC Rules and the later-accredited course under Rule 1. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the petition, holding that no such continuity exists and that the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 had expired before the application was filed.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Others
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_32076/2025, UPC_CoA_614/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a certificate from Politecnico di Milano. The Registrar rejected the application because it was filed after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, holding that the transitional period governs when the application for registration must be filed, not merely when the qualification was obtained, and that the period is not subject to extension or re-establishment of rights.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This decision concerns cross-appeals filed by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) and LAMA France before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. After the Paris Local Division had found one patent invalid and the other infringed, both parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court of Appeal granted the mutual withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of procedural costs to each party.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. Both parties withdrew their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement, and the court terminated the proceedings, ordering a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party without a decision on representation costs.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_18313/2025 UPC_CoA_347/2025) v.Ex Parte
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision denying his application to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had completed a CEIPI course on patent litigation in 2022 but filed his registration application on 21 February 2025, after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related circumstances did not justify re-establishment of rights.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Others
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a revocation action filed by EOFLOW against Insulet's European patent EP4201327 (relating to a fluid delivery device for insulin pumps), along with Insulet's counterclaim for infringement against EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump. The court addressed issues including the requirements for issuing a decision by default, the interpretation of patent claim language, and the application of cost caps under Article 1(3) of the Administrative Committee's decision. The court ultimately found infringement of claim 1 of EP4201327, issued injunctive relief, ordered information provision, product recall, and damages, with EOFLOW bearing the costs.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025)
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH to revoke an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, holding that Nanoval GmbH had timely initiated main proceedings based on the revised deadline start date set by the rapporteur's order of March 18, 2025, which adjusted the deadline start to the date the expert's report was made accessible to Nanoval.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU sought joinder of its parallel infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN, transfer of the defendants' counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division Paris (already seized by VEOLIA PROPRETE's revocation action), and a stay of the infringement proceedings. The panel ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, but rejected the request for a stay of the infringement proceedings at this stage.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP4201327 (relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps). EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent, while Insulet filed a counterclaim for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch insulin pump. The Court issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the revocation action, upheld the patent, found infringement by EOFLOW, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments for non-compliance.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Philips's application for cost assessment (R. 151 RoP) following a May 30, 2025 cost allocation order (65% to Belkin, 35% to Philips). Philips withdrew the application on the same day it was filed, explaining it was filed by mistake at the Court of Appeal instead of the Local Chamber Munich. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Paris concerning patent EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU had filed infringement actions against MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the alleged infringing incinerator) and VALINEA ENERGIE (exploiter of the incinerator), while VEOLIA PROPRETE had filed a revocation action before the Central Division Paris. The court ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, and rejected TIRU's request for a stay of the infringement proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1, which relates to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the proceedings were stayed pending the Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form (EP 464 B2). The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement, which the Court confirmed by decision, ordering partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides and keeping certain terms of the agreement confidential.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities regarding European Patent EP3852468. Sun Patent Trust filed applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to classify certain parts of its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential or highly confidential. The court granted the application in part, classifying specific information as confidential (accessible to Defendants' representatives, legal team, and named employees who signed NDAs) and highly confidential (restricted to the Defendants' representative, his legal team, and three named VIVO employees).
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.