European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 67 · 2,007 total
Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, Maguin SAS v.Tiru
This case before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) concerned revocation actions against European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 owned by Tiru, relating to a waste incineration installation and associated process. The claimants (Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, and Maguin SAS) sought revocation of the patent on grounds including Article 123(3) EPC (extension of protection), prior public use, and lack of inventive step. The court rejected the revocation requests and maintained the patent in modified form according to Tiru's subsidiary request 2.0 (rectified version), with costs split 60% to the claimants and 40% to Tiru.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, directed at a method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics using a multi-clad fiber. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the infringement claim against IPG Laser's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered the defendant to bear 90% of the costs of the infringement proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs obtained an ex parte inspection order from the Local Division Düsseldorf to inspect Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin in connection with patent EP 3 808 512. Upon Roborock's request for review, the Local Division revoked the inspection order, finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP by failing to disclose that Roborock itself was selling the contested products directly to German customers via Amazon. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Ecovacs' appeal and ordering Ecovacs to bear Roborock's costs.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The defendants applied for security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing the claimant's financial position posed a serious risk of non-recovery. The Court partially granted the request, ordering the claimant to provide security of €75,000 within six weeks, reduced from the requested €112,000, while rejecting the claimant's argument that its SME status should preclude or further reduce the security.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, OpenAI LP, OpenAI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity v.Keeex SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court reversed the Paris Local Division's order that had rejected preliminary objections challenging its international jurisdiction in a patent infringement action brought by Keeex SAS concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that the UPC's jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 is limited to the territory of UPC member states and cannot extend to alleged infringement of national patent parts in non-member states such as Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 669 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent with effect for France and Germany, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was unfounded.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against three Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669, which relates to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent for France and Germany, dismissed the Claimant's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 743 812 concerning dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that the application for production of source code evidence was unjustified.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. EP 3 743 812, which concerns the dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
The defendant, PR Medical s.r.l., an Italian company, raised a preliminary objection requesting that the language of proceedings be changed from English to Italian, arguing that Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) UPCA required Italian as the language since it is based in Italy and the alleged infringement occurred there. The Milan Local Division rejected the objection, holding that the two cumulative conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP were not both satisfied because the claimant had alleged and shown infringement in other Contracting Member States (notably Germany and Spain), meaning the action could have been brought before other local divisions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson, proprietor of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance (the Dyson Airwrap), sought provisional measures against Dreame entities for alleged infringement by their hair dryer products. The Hamburg Local Division granted an injunction covering the Old Dreame Products but not the New Dreame Products. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeal dismissed Dreame's appeal, allowed Dyson's appeal, and extended the provisional measures to the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, while staying proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Eurep GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction obtained by Dyson Technology Limited against Dreame International, Eurep GmbH, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB for alleged infringement of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a third-state defendant (Dreame International) in relation to Spain and over an EU-based authorized representative (Eurep).
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH and others v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), proprietor of European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2 relating to wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders, sued Koninklijke Philips N.V. and related entities for infringement of the patent with their NightBalance device. Philips counterclaimed for revocation, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, added matter, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety as obvious over prior art JP H03-49748 A in combination with common general knowledge, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered ABM to pay costs.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European patent EP 3 831 283. The Paris Central Division had dismissed Sibio's revocation action and maintained the patent as granted. On appeal, Sibio requested further exchanges of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP after Abbott's Statement of response referenced six auxiliary requests. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the proceedings from the first instance and did not require refiling on appeal.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns whether Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) must pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. EP 2 831 787. The court held that although Defendants 2–4 had already paid a single court fee for their joint counterclaim for revocation under Rule 370.7 RoP, Defendant 1's later-filed counterclaim constitutes a separate action requiring its own fee, even though the content is identical.
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.