European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 67 · 2,007 total
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524 before the Paris Local Division. Concurrently, Sun Patent Trust sought to classify certain information in its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential and highly confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The court issued a procedural order defining the scope of confidentiality protection, restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific named representatives, legal teams, and limited employees of the Vivo defendants.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, VAB-Logistik UAB, SMIS International OÜ, Meril GmbH, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a FRAND interim hearing in patent infringement proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court set out a timetable for further pleadings on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file until August 11, 2025, and Lenovo to respond until September 1, 2025. The order also confirmed upcoming dates for a further interim hearing (September 25, 2025, by video conference) and the main oral hearing (November 19, 2025, in person in Munich).
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) on 18 July 2025, following an interim conference in two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The order addresses procedural matters including the narrowing of invalidity attacks, structuring of the oral hearing, and setting deadlines for further submissions by the parties.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
bioMérieux UK Limited and bioMérieux SA et al. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) in revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. Following an interim conference, the court directed bioMérieux to narrow down its approximately 50 invalidity attacks and 16 prior art citations to a manageable number, particularly focusing on Auxiliary Requests 1, 2, and 3, and ordered both parties to provide specific submissions and cost estimates by set deadlines.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, and Dr Reddy's Srl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare entities and related defendants
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court denied a request by Respondent PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The court held that the urgency inherent in interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not constitute such circumstances. The court also offered the parties the opportunity to raise objections to Respondent 1 participating in the hearing via video link by July 24, 2025.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Samsung Electronics France S.A.S. (EP 2 839 403)
The defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) requested a three-week extension of time periods for filing their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and their reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, seeking a deadline of 11 August 2025. The claimant (Fingon LLC) opposed the request. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding that the defendants had substantiated their need for additional time to analyze new technical arguments and obtain information from a third-party developer and their private expert.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Ex Parte
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.
POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Husqvarna AB
POSITEC Germany GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Husqvarna AB before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP 3978304 was granted). Husqvarna opposed the application, arguing that POSITEC, as a German company operating the EMEA headquarters, should be able to handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the position of the defendant prevailed in the balancing of interests.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
BioNTech SE and Others v.Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected MAGUIN SAS's appeal against an order of the Paris Local Division that had refused to revoke an ex parte order for evidence preservation and site inspection. The court upheld the principle that evidence preservation measures under Rules 192.3 and 197 RoP do not require the same urgency, certainty of evidence disappearance, or patent validity assessment as provisional measures, and that applicants need not disclose prior art unless special circumstances warrant it.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Milan) against Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. concerning European Patent EP2519412. During the proceedings, Pirelli and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH entered into a settlement agreement, and Pirelli requested the Court to confirm the settlement, maintain confidentiality over certain financial details, and continue the action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of the unredacted terms, and granted Pirelli a reimbursement of 30% of the total Court Fees.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND in patent infringement proceedings. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann on July 15, 2025, sets a hearing date of July 21, 2025, to be held in person, in English, and entirely in camera due to the confidential nature of the topics to be discussed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division of Paris's order rejecting VALINEA's request for revocation of an ex parte evidence preservation and site inspection order concerning European patent EP 3 178 578. The court held that the urgency assessment for evidence preservation differs from that for provisional measures, that the risk of evidence disappearance is assessed by probability rather than certainty, and that patent validity need not be assessed at the evidence preservation stage. VALINEA's appeal was rejected.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich section) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interim hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge made several procedural determinations, including setting the value in dispute at EUR 500,000, reserving the admissibility decision on a specific exhibit for the oral hearing, and scheduling the oral hearing for October 16, 2025.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided judgment text contains only the digital signatures of the presiding judges and the date of signing (July 12, 2025), with no substantive content regarding the facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome of the case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The provided judgment text contains only digital signatures of the presiding judges (Peter Hendrik Blok and Emmanuel, Lucien, René Gougé) dated 12 July 2025, with no substantive content, facts, arguments, or reasoning available for analysis.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited, as registered proprietor of EP 3 281 580, applied to the Local Division Mannheim for an order to preserve evidence (Saisie) under Art. 60 UPCA, alleging that Palo Alto Networks' network security solution (Next Generation Firewall, Advanced Threat Prevention, and App-ID Cloud Engine) likely infringed claims 1 and 16 of the patent. After the judge-rapporteur initially rejected the application and the Court of Appeal referred the matter back, the court granted the application in modified form, ordering inspection, evidence preservation, and an expert report subject to a security of EUR 100,000 and various confidentiality conditions.
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.