European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 67 · 2,007 total
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Nera Innovations Ltd. sued several Xiaomi group entities for infringement of the German and Dutch parts of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless power receivers, based on the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G smartphones. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, to which Nera responded with 33 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The Local Chamber Hamburg partially revoked the patent, declaring it null to the extent its subject matter extended beyond claim 1 as maintained in auxiliary requests 1 and 2, while dismissing the further-reaching revocation counterclaim.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which relates to a cutting tool for a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The defendant informed the Registry it would not be represented at the oral hearing and failed to appear, leading the Local Chamber Düsseldorf to decide on the merits as if the defendant had been present. The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendant to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, surrender them to a bailiff, provide detailed information on origin and distribution, and pay provisional costs of EUR 33,335.70.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and Others
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent EP3259902 was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 746 957. The order contains preliminary remarks and questions from the judge-rapporteur in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing claim construction, validity issues, and infringement considerations. The order also confirms the value in dispute at EUR 5,000,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings before the Milan Local Division. The Claimant, Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the underlying figures. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the merits stage.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG and Renault S.A.S. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Order on Language of Proceedings)
The President of the Court of First Instance granted an application by the Renault defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP3726780 was granted. The claimant Avago Technologies opposed the change, arguing that the alleged infringement occurred exclusively in Germany and that German allowed for more precise communication. The court held that the position of the defendants should prevail in the balancing of interests, given the claimant's flexibility in choosing the forum and language.
Network Systems Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' submission of June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing technical unavailability of the UPC CMS filing system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The court rejected the request, holding that the temporary CMS shutdown is already addressed by the automatic extension of deadlines under Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC & Others
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding cross-applications for security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court held that defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation could also seek security for costs related to those counterclaims under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP. The court ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting the plaintiff's own request for security from the defendants.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes's European patent EP 2 196 231 before the Central Division Paris, which was dismissed with costs awarded against Tandem Diabetes. After Tandem Diabetes appealed, the parties settled the proceedings, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement on 3 June 2025. Tandem Diabetes then applied for reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, which the Court of Appeal granted because the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed the appellant to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Brussels that had dismissed its infringement claims concerning European patent 2 331 036. The court held that the appellant, as the unsuccessful party in the appeal, must bear the reasonable and proportionate costs of the appeal proceedings incurred by OrthoApnea, but declared inadmissible both OrthoApnea's request for a specific cost amount of €2,693.33 and the appellant's request to resume the pending cost procedure at the Local Division Brussels.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who are plaintiffs in counterclaims for revocation may also request security for costs related to those counterclaims. The plaintiff's request for security from the defendants was denied, while the defendants' requests were partially granted, with the plaintiff ordered to provide EUR 200,000 in security to defendants 1-3 and EUR 100,000 to defendant 5.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre's appeal against a cost determination order of the Local Division Munich. The court held that the general cost determination procedure under R. 150 ff. RoP applies to cost decisions following withdrawal of an application under R. 265 RoP, and that on appeal, review is limited to a marginal check of whether the awarded costs are reasonable and proportionate under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation could claim security for costs related to those counterclaims, and ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting the plaintiff's own request for security from the defendants.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court held that a defendant in an infringement suit who files a counterclaim for revocation may seek security for costs related to that counterclaim under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP. The court ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting Headwater's request for security from the defendants.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The claimant Swarco Futurit sought an order requiring the intervener Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd to provide security of EUR 169,000 for potential cost reimbursement claims. The court rejected the application, following the Court of Appeal's reasoning in AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025).
Quantificare S.A. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Inc., Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., and Esthetec SAS
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to decide early, before the close of written proceedings, that it would hear both the infringement action filed by Quantificare S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to ensure a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a request by the claimant, Corning Incorporated, for a two-week extension of the time limit to file its Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim, including an Application to amend the patent EP 3 296 274. The court granted the extension, finding that the claimant had been without full access to the defendants' submissions for three weeks due to the establishment of a confidentiality regime.
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. and managing director v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. After the parties settled the patent infringement action and counterclaims for revocation through three separate settlements following the oral hearing, both the plaintiffs and defendants applied for partial reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.11 and R. 370.9(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The court rejected all applications, holding that because the oral procedure had already been completed at the time of settlement, no reimbursement was available.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated application-to-amend proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892 B1. The court granted access, finding that Acer had a specific interest due to a related infringement action and that the general principle of public access applies even when proceedings have ended without a decision. The court rejected Nokia's argument that Acer should be restricted from distributing the documents, holding that confidentiality conditions apply only to pending proceedings.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer had a specific interest as it faced an infringement action based on the same patent. The court granted access to most documents with redaction of personal data, rejected access to certain exhibits, granted Nokia leave to appeal, and suspended the order's effects pending appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a German law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from a terminated revocation action (UPC_CFI_181/2024) involving patent EP2661892. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court granted access to most requested documents with personal data redacted, applying the Court of Appeal's Ocado v Autostore principles, but rejected access to two specific exhibits. The court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
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.