European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 73 · 2,185 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
AGATHON AG v.INTERCOM S.R.L. And KNARR VERTRIEBS GMBH
Infringement Action
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
Infringement Action
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Application for provisional measures
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Generic Order
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement Action
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
Generic Order
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 between Hurom Co., Ltd. as Claimant and NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. as Defendant. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendant raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
AGATHON AG v.INTERCOM S.R.L. And KNARR VERTRIEBS GMBH
Agathon AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 363 263 B1 relating to a centring device for a forming tool, brought an infringement action against Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH concerning centring devices marketed under specific article numbers. The defendants denied infringement and Intercom filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, with a decision delivered on 5 May 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a penalty request in enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns an order by the Local Chamber Hamburg regarding the determination of coercive measures (Zwangsmittel) under Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicant, Brita SE, had previously obtained an order on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. prohibiting the marketing of certain water filter devices and requiring disclosure of sales information. The current order addresses the determination of enforcement measures related to that prior injunction.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This case concerns an Application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. following the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismiss the infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The Claimant withdrew its Application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026, and the Respondents raised no objections. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that no separate cost decision was needed f
Simmons & Simmons LLP v.Genentech Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Organon Heist B.V., and NV Organon
This order concerns an application by Simmons & Simmons LLP under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from two underlying UPC proceedings (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) involving Genentech/Roche as claimants and Organon as defendants, which were orders to preserve evidence and for inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1 that were subsequently withdrawn. The Judge-Rapporteur held that while Article 45 UPCA permits confidentiality in the interest of justice, access should be granted to redacted submissions leading to the orders and review decisions, but not to information subject to an EEO-regime for which destruction/return requests were pending when the actions were withdrawn.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Application for provisional measures
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Revocation Action
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
Access To Case
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Generic Order
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
Generic Order
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele filed an application for provisional measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of EP 4 676 295 B1 through Melitta's 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags. After the court indicated that the patent's validity appeared compromised by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, ordered Miele to reimburse Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (€7,300) beca
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
In this legal proceeding before Brussels (BE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_46FFEC8858, Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG appeared in dispute with ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 and involves an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for the revocation of an inspection and evidence preservation order previously issued ex parte by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 22, 2025. The original order had permitted OTEC to inspect a 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' at the respondent's stand at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair, including operating the device, attaching a smartphone to measure rotation speed, and configuring programs. The present order, issued on May 4, 2026, addresses the respondent's request to set aside that earlier inspection order under Article 60(8) of the relevant agreement and Rules 198.1 and 199.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition containing at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order,
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group, regarding European Patent EP3119235. The defendants filed a Statement of Defense requesting a stay of proceedings on two grounds: first, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Regulation, particularly whether an EU representative can serve as an anchor defendant for a non-EU entity; and second, an alternative request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, which the defendants expect to be resolved within approximately seven months.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
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.