European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 21 of 67 · 2,007 total
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP2661892, a revocation action between HP and Nokia that ended by withdrawal. Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a sufficient specific interest and should not be permitted to distribute the file contents. The Court of First Instance granted access with personal data redacted, finding that the general principle of public access applies once proceedings have ended, and also granted Nokia leave to appeal.
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) on June 27, 2025, in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13 for lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as amended under a main request and eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address procedural matters including the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, and the scope of the nullity attacks.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (EP 3 652 914)
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Zentiva France and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The defendants (Zentiva entities) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review of a procedural order dated 8 May 2025 regarding case management. The panel confirmed the original order with a minor correction (a typo in the rule citation) and dismissed all of Zentiva's requests.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerns an application by the Defendants to stay proceedings following the insolvency of two of the three Defendants. Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V. were declared bankrupt by the Amsterdam District Court on 27 and 30 May 2025 respectively. The Court granted the stay of proceedings in their entirety for a period of three months under Rule 311.1 RoP, holding that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay but that the Court shall stay proceedings upon such declaration.
Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V. and managing director v.Visibly Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to Easee's appeal against a Hamburg Local Division order requiring Easee to provide EUR 75,000 in security for costs related to a revocation counterclaim in a patent infringement action brought by Visibly Inc. concerning EP 3 918 974. The court found that the first instance order contained a manifest legal error, consistent with its prior ruling in AorticLab vs. Emboline, which established that Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action, nor in response to a counterclaim for revocation. The managing director's application was granted outright, while the Easee companies' application was granted provisionally pending resolution of a competence issue regarding their legal representation following their insolvency.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 concerning a method and system for detecting offside situations, applied for provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. The Local Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs of €56,000 and subsequently dismissed the application for provisional measures. On appeal, Ballinno withdrew its requests for provisional measures, rendering the action devoid of purpose, and the Court of Appeal rejected Ballinno's challenge to the security order, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and set the value of the dispute for appeal at €100,000.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A., an Italian agricultural equipment manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 604 concerning a reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers, brought an infringement action against the Greek company Spiridonakis Bros GP for allegedly offering, distributing, and advertising a counterfeit product called the 'Bellota tool.' The defendant failed to enter proceedings after being served in absentia, prompting the Central Division Milan to issue a decision by default. The Court granted a permanent injunction, information orders, and cost awards against the defendant.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Aesculap AG, as applicant, sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The presiding judge issued indications in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025, including a proposed feature breakdown of patent claim 1 relating to a cutting tool of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.
Arkyne Technologies appealed a decision of the Hague Local Division that found it had infringed EP 2 137 782 and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Before the written procedure closed, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees paid by Arkyne, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected oppositions filed by the defendants challenging its jurisdiction in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that the plaintiff could supplementarily rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ in response to the opposition, even though the original complaint cited only Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 EPGÜ extends jurisdiction to persons who neither committed infringement nor have their seat in the relevant contracting member state. The court found jurisdiction established based on alleged infringing acts in Germany and the involvement of Defendant 5 (Flextronics) as a logistics service provider, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The defendants filed objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the jurisdiction of the Local Chamber Munich. The court rejected the objections, holding that the plaintiff could additionally rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ even though it had originally cited only Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that jurisdiction was established based on the alleged infringing activities of the defendants in Germany.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP filed by Ericsson regarding the confidentiality regime for its licensing documents in patent infringement proceedings involving EP3076673. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to prevent Asustek's employees from accessing sensitive licensing data involving Asustek's competitors. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence of an actual risk of antitrust violations, but granted leave to appeal to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 072. The defendants filed oppositions under Rule 19.1 RoP challenging the jurisdiction of the Munich Local Chamber. The court rejected the oppositions, holding that the plaintiff could rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ in addition to Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 EPGÜ constitutes an extension of jurisdiction to defendants who neither committed infringement nor have their seat in the relevant contracting member state.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
Anordnung
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 602 692. The appeal was filed by ILME against an order of the Local Division Munich rejecting ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action brought by PHOENIX CONTACT. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP without a costs order.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company and Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, sought a rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without hearing it and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that Alexion's submissions amounted to mere disagreement with the court's reasoning rather than establishing a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action (ACT_39091/2024) regarding European Patent EP2404516 initiated by N.J Diffusion SARL against Gisela Mayer GmbH. After judicial reorganization proceedings were opened against N.J Diffusion on June 5, 2025, Gisela Mayer sought a security for costs guarantee of €50,000 under Rule 158 RoP and a postponement of the oral hearing. The panel admitted the voluntary intervention of the judicial administrator and judicial agent, but declared the guarantee request inadmissible, holding that granting such a guarantee to one creditor of a debtor in judicial reorganization would violate the principle of equality of creditors under French collective proceedings law.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company Limited et al.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Walt Disney entity defendants filed an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS concerning EP 2080349. The Claimant did not raise new objections, and all other defendants joined the application. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS) filed a request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information. The court granted the request, classifying information contained in the unredacted settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Defendant 6 as confidential, and ordered Defendants 1-5 to treat such information as confidential and not use it outside the proceedings.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Milan Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request amendment (AR4), withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The parties were granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and legal costs.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is an interim conference order from the Milan Local Division in proceedings concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request (AR4) amendment, withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The judge-rapporteur referred the admissibility of the AR4 amendment to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing and granted the parties a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and costs.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
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.