European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 21 of 73 · 2,185 total
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Appeal RoP220.1
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under Rule 192 against WEPA Nederland B.V in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which relates to tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing the seizure of descriptions, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, The Netherlands. The court applied specific Dutch national rules and practice for seizure, including provisions on password-protected drives and cloud-stored documents, and ruled that the Applicant's representatives may not be present during the seizure while Defendant's personnel may be questioned but cannot be compelled to answer under penalty.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-04-17) under reference UPC_5B2F76A36A, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appeared in dispute with Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., Goodyear Operations S.A.
Infringement Action
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Appeal RoP220.1
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others
Infringement Action
PRNOTH SPA v.XELOM s.r.l.
Infringement Action
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., Goodyear Operations S.A.
Michelin sued Goodyear for infringing European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to a 'Variable surface area tire tread.' Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation. The Paris Local Division of the UPC found the patent lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, and dismissed all of Michelin's infringement claims, ordering Michelin to bear the costs.
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others
Corning Incorporated sued four entities of the TCL Technology Group before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 3 296 274, which covers methods for producing alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glass sheets used in LCD-TVs. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that Defendants 1 to 3 infringed the patent through the importation and sale of LCD-TVs incorporating glass sheets made by the patented process, granted injunctive relief and ancillary measures, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered a cost-split reflecting partial success on both sides.
PRNOTH SPA v.XELOM s.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., plaintiff in a patent infringement action before the UPC Local Division Milan concerning EP2507436 and EP1995159, sought a 30-day extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP to file its reply, originally due April 27, 2026. Xelom s.r.l. opposed the request. The Judge Rapporteur granted the extension to May 27, 2026, finding the request timely, well-motivated, and supported by evidence, given that Xelom had introduced numerous new documents, approximately 150 new validity attacks, and a 360-p
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1, with Brita SE as plaintiff and Wessper Sp. z o.o. as defendant. The decision addressed issues of indirect patent infringement and patent exhaustion in relation to a two-component product and wear parts. The court established that for indirect infringement, the existence of the other component is not required for the objective elements, and that for exhaustion analysis, the technical teaching of combined claims (main claim plus sub-claims) must be examined.
UMICORE N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V., RECAT GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning confidentiality in an infringement action involving European Patent EP4087952. The defendants requested that certain technical information in their Statement of Defence and Exhibit ES5 be classified as confidential and excluded from public access. The Court granted the confidentiality designation, expanded the list of persons at Umicore who could access the information to include technical experts, and ordered that Umicore's reply deadlines under R. 29(a) RoP begin from the date it receives the full unredacted Statement of Defence.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Application Rop 223
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED 2. NAGOR LIMITED 3. GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED 4. GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED 5. GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS 6. EUROSILICONE SAS 7. GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. 8. GC AESTHETICS GmbH 9. GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U. 10. GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED 11. GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED 12. GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED 13. ROMED N.V. v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
Infringement Action
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.1. BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a preliminary objection filed by three BYD Group entities challenging the Paris Local Division's international jurisdiction in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2937706. The defendants domiciled in China and the United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, particularly because the Chinese defendants were not alleged to have committed any infringing act within the territory of an EU Member State. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that it has no international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU) who are not alleged to have committed infringing acts within EU territory.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-14) under reference UPC_6B42A85967, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Infringement Action
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
Application For Costs
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Infringement Action
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.