European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 54 · 1,592 total
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this complex international patent dispute, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against Qualcomm Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399, which relates to integrated circuits and transaction methods. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim because the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient when a party bears the burden of proving infringement.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court dismissed the infringement claim against NVIDIA regarding EP 3 743 812. The patent relates to dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. While the main infringement suit failed, the defendant's counterclaim for revocation was not addressed because the condition precedent (the failure of the infringement action) was met. This case reinforces key procedural principles regarding claim construction and contingent counterclaims within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant ruling concerning network technology patents, the Local Division Munich dismissed the infringement claim brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm Incorporated. The court found that the Claimant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding patent infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements placed on claimants in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient without conclusive factual substantiation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In this complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC over EP 1 875 683, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations of infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is sufficient when a claimant fails to present conclusive evidence.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
In this complex UPC case involving BFexaQC AG against NVIDIA Corporation, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 743 812, which covers dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance regarding the non-binding nature of applicant statements during the grant phase and the conditions under which a conditional counterclaim for revocation can be handled.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 1 552 669 in France and Germany. The revocation followed the dismissal of the infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm subsidiaries. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively prove its case, allowing the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation to succeed. This decision underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 1 875 683. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its claims during the oral hearing, despite arguments regarding evidence production under Rule 190 RoP. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, particularly when asserting complex technical infringement.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG
This UPC appeal case involved an application for interim measures concerning patent EP 1 962 668, filed by Menarini Diagnostics against Roche. After the initial proceedings at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the claimants withdrew their request for provisional relief. The UPC Board of Appeal accepted this withdrawal and terminated the case, highlighting the importance of amicable resolution in complex patent litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this significant UPC decision, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement suit against Qualcomm regarding EP 1 552 669. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich ultimately revoked the patent in France and Germany, dismissing the infringement action entirely. This case underscores the high burden of proof required by claimants to conclusively demonstrate patent infringement before the UPC.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the retrospective extension of deadlines in preliminary measures proceedings. The Defendants sought to overturn a Local Division order that granted an extension based on human error, arguing it circumvented strict rules for missed deadlines (R. 320 RoP). The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division's ruling, emphasizing judicial discretion and procedural stability over challenging the initial decision.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Hologic, Inc. to submit further written arguments in an ongoing UPC case against Siemens Healthineers AG. The Court ultimately rejected this request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and insufficient justification provided by the Claimant. This decision reinforces the court's strict management of proceedings under the Rules of Procedure (RoP), balancing the right to be heard against procedural efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed a preliminary objection concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The defendant argued that since they were based in Italy, the trial must proceed in Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that because the claimant alleged infringing activities across various contracting states (including Germany and via global website presence), the exception to the language rule did not apply. The decision affirms the principle that jurisdiction can be established where infringement occurs or may occur, allowing for flexibility in procedural choices.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to documents from a prior preliminary injunction case involving Boehringer and Zentiva. The Court ruled that while proceedings are generally open to the public, this principle must be balanced against the parties' need to protect sensitive commercial and personal information. Consequently, the Applicant was granted access to the requested pleadings, but only in redacted versions provided by the respondents.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an appeal filed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V against a prior infringement judgment issued by the Local Division in favor of HL Display AB. Due to pending settlement discussions, Black Sheep withdrew its appeal with the consent of HL Display. The court formally permitted this withdrawal and addressed the associated application for reimbursement of court fees under the updated Rules of Procedure.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application for further written pleadings during an ongoing infringement appeal. The claimant, Hurom, sought additional time to respond to new arguments and prior art documents introduced by the respondents (NUC). The court ultimately rejected this request, prioritizing the principle of efficient conduct and the upcoming oral hearing. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural timelines within the UPC's written phase.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the parties agreed to settle the dispute regarding provisional measures. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, contingent on Washtower covering all legal costs and compensating Bega for any damages resulting from the initial injunctions. Crucially, the court determined the value in dispute at €530,000, applying a specific calculation method derived from the Guidelines to assess recoverable costs.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural request by Sibio Technology Limited seeking further written pleadings during an appeal against a revocation judgment. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that appeals must be based on the record established at the Court of First Instance. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure, ensuring efficiency while maintaining due process.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a dispute over court fees related to counterclaims for revocation. The claimant, Irdeto B.V., initiated an infringement action against several defendants, including SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. The core issue was whether Defendant 1 could use the fee paid by Defendants 2-4 when submitting its own counterclaim later. The Court ruled that because Defendant 1's submission constituted a separate action/counterclaim in time, it must pay a distinct court fee.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by the respondent (Huawei) seeking to suspend an earlier order concerning document access granted by the rapporteur. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, utilizing Rule 335 VerfO to prevent the immediate fulfillment of the access request from undermining the subsequent Panel Review. This highlights the UPC's commitment to ensuring that procedural steps do not prematurely conclude a case before the full judicial review process is complete.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., Pfizer B.V., and associated entities (collectively PBNT)
This procedural order in the GSK v. Pfizer case focused on managing the complexity and volume of submissions within the UPC proceedings. The defendants requested limitations on Auxiliary Requests (ARs) and an extension for their rejoinder, citing excessive length and number of ARs from the claimant. The court acknowledged the high volume but did not limit the ARs; instead, it required GSK to provide a detailed tabular overview of its claims to improve judicial clarity. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with the need for expeditious case management.
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA initiated proceedings against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning the validity or infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order setting the date for oral hearings on April 22, 2026. This decision highlights the court's focus on ensuring technical expertise by requesting an additional qualified judge in the medical technology field (A61F/A61B).
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed complex applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in the GSK v Moderna dispute over vaccine patents. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new product variants (mNEXSPIKE), while simultaneously dismissing Moderna’s objections concerning the timeliness of GSK's submissions. This decision affirms the claimant's right to adapt its case and respond fully to the defendant's arguments, setting a clear procedural path for the ongoing infringement and validity proceedings.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
In a significant revocation action, UPM-Kymmene Oyj successfully challenged European patent EP 2 611 800 against International N&H Denmark ApS. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely across all participating member states. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of subject matter scope under the UPC Agreement, particularly concerning claims that may extend beyond the original application's content.
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.