European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 73 · 2,185 total
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Appeal RoP220.1
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
Application for provisional measures
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
Infringement Action
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
The Court of Appeal had previously ordered ONWARD Medical N.V. to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Niche Biomedical, Inc. filed a cost assessment application on 27 April 2026, but withdrew it the same day, stating it would refile the application at the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal by analogy to Rule 265(1) RoP without a hearing, finding that the respondent's interest was not affected and that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
fiskaly GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 titled 'SECURELY REGISTERING A SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS,' filed an application on April 20, 2026 seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. No main infringement action had yet been filed, but fiskaly indicated its intention to bring such an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf following the requested inspection. The order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on April 27, 2026, under Article 60 of the European Patent Convention Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV based on European Patent EP3841735. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed whether further submissions beyond those foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should be considered, and weighed the relevance of English being the language of the patent and the technology field against the particular circumstances of the parties' size and domicile. The order was issued following consultation with the panel of the Local Division Brussels.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Application Rop 223
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. et al.
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich upheld an order requiring the Claimant, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, to provide EUR 300,000 in security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1. The Claimant argued that a bank guarantee provided by the Defendants as 'FRAND security' should relieve it of the obligation to provide security for costs, but the court rejected this argument. The court also held that merely taking out ATE insurance does not automatically remove the obligation to provide security for costs.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Infringement Action
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
Counterclaim for revocation
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Revocation Action
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720 concerning a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's maximum 20-year protection period had expired on 7 August 2024, but the court found the action admissible because BASF had initiated evidence preservation proceedings in Belgium and announced damages claims for the period when the patent was in force. The court dismissed the revocation action an
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Infringement Action
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Dainese S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of protective motorcycle equipment including the DAir® airbag system, brought an infringement action against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l. (a Spanish company) concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364, alleging that the defendants' Tech Air 3 System and Tech Air 10 Race System products infringed the patent. The decision addresses jurisdictional issues under Article 8 of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012, examining whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments when one defendant is domiciled in Spain and is sued for infringement of the Spanish portion of the same patent.
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Application for provisional measures
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy applied for an ex parte provisional measure described as an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales. The dispute arises from global SEP litigation between the parties, with infringement actions pending before the Local Chambers Mannheim and Munich, and a parallel rate-setting proceeding initiated by Geely before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Nokia seeks to prevent Geely from obtaining an 'Interim Licence' or equivalent measure in the Chinese proceedings, arguing such relief would interfere with the UPC's jurisdiction over the European patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
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.