European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 73 · 2,185 total
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses multiple procedural applications in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order deals with Acer's application for production of comparable licence agreements under Rule 190, requests for a confidentiality regime under Rules 262A and 262.2, the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., and Dolbys request for an extension of deadlines. The subject matter includes an infringement action, a counterclaim for revocation, and a counterclaim for rate-setting.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
Appeal RoP220.2
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Generic Order
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
Infringement Action
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as entirely inadmissible the appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated 19 December 2025, which had ordered Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that Adobe had failed to first obtain authorization to appeal from the first instance court as required by Rule 220.
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
This order concerns an application by the plaintiff for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) under the revised Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, rejecting the plaintiff's request for 60% reimbursement.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Application for provisional measures
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
This order concerns a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) application filed by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI Sport entities (formerly Supponor) in relation to European Patent EP 3 295 663. The preliminary injunction application had become devoid of purpose after the Court of Appeal set aside the Helsinki Local Division's earlier decision dismissing the infringement action and PI for lack of jurisdiction, and AIM Sport indicated it no longer wished to pursue the PI application. The Court disposed of the provisional measures application based on Rule 360 RoP (no longer need to adjudicate) and addressed the parties' requests regarding costs.
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
In infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP2148123, the defendants alleged public prior use based on two 2008 projects (Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands) in which plugs allegedly embodying all features of the patent were supplied by IHC Handling Systems (later merged into IQIP B.V., a subsidiary of the claimant). The defendants filed a request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to order IQIP Holding B.V. and IQIP B.V. to produce extensive technical documentation regarding the prior plugs and assemblies. The Court partially awarded the request, finding it too broad and therefore limiting the scope of the production order.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Generic Order
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Infringement Action
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
Generic Order
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 610 762, in which CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG sues ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur, sets out directions for the further conduct of the case, including requirements for uniform patent interpretation, the presentation of validity attacks (particularly on inventive step), the proper formatting of auxiliary requests, and a timetable for revised submissions and responses. The court found the defendant's inventive step attacks insufficient and advised focusing on the strongest attacks, while also setting deadlines running from May 15, 2026 through June 19, 2026.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning the suspension of appeal proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Both parties jointly requested suspension of the appeal proceedings regarding an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation due to an out-of-court settlement. The Court of Appeal granted the joint request and ordered the suspension of both appeal proceedings to prevent the deadline for filing the appeal brief from expiring before decisions on the withdrawal applications are made.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v.Zapp AG a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 805 415. The plaintiff Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. raised an objection of delay under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, combined with a precautionary application for permission to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH had introduced entirely new and extensive factual submissions in their reply (Duplik) to the amendment request in the nullity proceedings dated April 13, 2026, particularly regarding the main request for nullity rather than the auxiliary requests.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Infringement Action
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
Application For Costs
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
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.