European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 54 · 1,592 total
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by the Applicant, 10x Genomics, to expand access rights within the confidentiality club for its legal representatives' firm. The Applicant sought to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings due to staffing issues. The Court partially granted this request, allowing the replacement of two specific members but firmly rejecting the broader proposal to grant blanket access to all paralegals.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order addressed requests from Moderna to rectify previous court orders concerning the deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections (PO). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the dates of service mentioned in the original PO Order contained clerical errors. By correcting these dates, the court confirmed that all defendants, including various international Moderna entities, had filed their preliminary objections timely and were therefore admissible to defend themselves in the main infringement proceedings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sought a warning from the UPC Local Division Mannheim, requesting that Kodak GmbH and its affiliates pay up to EUR 30,000 per day if they failed to comply with information requests set out in a previous judgment. The court rejected this application, emphasizing that since the original decision retained flexibility regarding timelines and penalties, any enforcement or penalty determination must occur through subsequent applications. This ruling reinforces the procedural approach of the UPC concerning non-compliance warnings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this case management order, the UPC Milan Local Division addressed a joint request for a stay of proceedings involving two patents. The Court ruled that when all parties agree to a stay under Rule 295(d), the court is obligated to grant it, emphasizing party autonomy (Art 43 UPCA). Crucially, the decision allowed for a partial stay, halting proceedings related to EP '117 while permitting the infringement and revocation actions concerning EP '364 to proceed normally. This highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation involving multiple patents.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning costs determination in UPC case UPC_CFI_58/2024, Lionra Technologies Ltd. successfully petitioned for restoration of its previous status after missing a deadline under Rule 151 VerfO. The court accepted the argument that the oversight was an organizational error within the claimant's legal team, which fell outside the party's control. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural deadlines, especially those related to costs procedures, can be restored if the failure is attributable to circumstances beyond the party's reasonable influence.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd.
Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 402 420 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, Versah reached an out-of-court settlement with one of the defendants (Respondent 2). The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the claimant's request for partial withdrawal against this specific defendant and terminated those proceedings. This case highlights how private settlements can directly impact the trajectory and scope of UPC litigation.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz focuses heavily on procedural consolidation. The court mandated that the claimant, Heraeus, submit a consolidated version of its formal claims by June 11, 2025. This move aims to streamline the proceedings, especially concerning how infringement claims relate to counterclaims for revocation across different jurisdictions. The parties are also urged to resume settlement discussions and establish a cost comparison.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This procedural order in the BioMarin v Ascendis Pharma case sets critical dates for the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP patent 3 175 863. The court scheduled an interim conference for January 9, 2026, and a full oral hearing for March 18, 2026. Furthermore, the panel agreed to allocate a technically qualified judge in biotechnology, signaling the move toward substantive examination of the complex biotech patent.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC confirmed a settlement agreement reached between F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court upheld the request for confidentiality regarding the terms of this settlement. While the case against these two parties is concluded via settlement, litigation continues against other defendants involved in the infringement proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they submitted to the court. The defendants sought protection because they had appealed the underlying decision ordering them to disclose the data. However, the Court ultimately dismissed their request, holding that the existing limitations on how the claimant can use the information are adequate protection under trade secret law. This ruling clarifies the scope of R. 262A RoP when information is provided as part of a merits judgment.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional questions regarding the temporal scope of the UPCA Agreement, specifically concerning acts occurring before its entry into force or during a patent's opt-out period. The court affirmed that the UPC possesses competence over these historical infringement acts, provided the action is lodged while the patent is under exclusive jurisdiction. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating transitional periods and opting out of the UPC system.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK) to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they were required to provide to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.). The defendants sought protection pending an appeal against the underlying decision. However, the UPC Local Division Mannheim dismissed this request entirely. The court held that since the information was already subject to inherent usage restrictions tied to the infringement action, and because the defendant must provide the data directly to the claimant, a separate confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP was unnecessary.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection in the dispute concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The case involves Genentech/Roche against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech regarding biosimilars of the cancer drug Perjeta®. This decision allows the Applicants to secure critical information necessary for their claims, highlighting the UPC's proactive role in managing complex pharmaceutical litigation.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In this significant pharmaceutical dispute, Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sought urgent procedural measures against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. The UPC Local Division granted both an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning the patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers the cancer medicine Perjeta®. This decision is a critical step in securing necessary data for the ongoing litigation regarding biosimilar launch (HLX11).
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the Mannheim Local Division addressed a dispute over the language of proceedings in an infringement action concerning EP 4 108 413. The Claimant, Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH, sought to confirm its choice of English as the official language. The Court ruled that the Claimant's initial designation and filing in English was valid, thereby resolving the procedural issue regarding the language.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Visibly Inc.'s request for security for costs against Easee B.V. The court found that despite arguments regarding the UPCA's scope and the defendants' status as a start-up, the claimant was entitled to protect itself from non-recovery of legal fees due to the defendants' precarious financial situation. This decision reinforces the procedural right of parties in UPC proceedings to seek security for costs when there is a genuine risk that judgment costs cannot be recovered.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1, which covers a specialized pressure pack dispenser. Lindal argued the patent lacked industrial application and novelty. The UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary request. This decision underscores the procedural complexities of UPC litigation, particularly regarding the interplay between invalidity arguments and amendments.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning the pressure pack dispenser patent (EP 3 655 346 B1). The claimant argued for invalidity based on lack of industrial application and novelty. However, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary requests. This decision underscores the procedural complexities within the UPC, particularly concerning claim amendments and the interpretation of patentability requirements.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had initially sought revocation of EP 2 794 928 against Harvard, which was subsequently revoked by the CFI. When Harvard appealed and later withdrew the appeal, the dispute shifted to fee reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). The Court ruled that because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure closed but before the interim procedure ended, Harvard qualified for a 40% refund rather than the maximum 60%.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung initiated an infringement action against ZTE regarding standard-essential patents related to 5G mobile devices. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim issued an order setting the preliminary value of the dispute at €4 million. This decision significantly raises the financial stakes for both parties, reflecting the broad commercial impact of the alleged infringement across key market segments.
Aylo Premium Ltd. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a significant decision concerning streaming technology, the UPC Central Division revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1. The dispute centered on the validity of an apparatus for adaptive-rate content streaming. While the revocation was limited to Germany, the ruling underscores the Court's ability to tailor the scope of patent invalidity across different UPC member states. This case is a key example of how national validation status impacts unitary proceedings.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated proceedings against Advanced Bionics entities regarding patent EP 4 074 373 B1. However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw the claim. The court formally granted the withdrawal and terminated the case. This decision highlights how mutual settlements can lead to a swift conclusion of complex UPC litigation.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the delicate balance required when granting orders for preserving evidence and inspecting premises. The court clarified that while the standard of proof is lower in these summary proceedings than in a full infringement action, applicants must demonstrate plausibility rather than mere speculation to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that any such measures must be necessary for effective patent enforcement while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH against an earlier order issued to preserve evidence and conduct inspections regarding patent EP 3 083 107. The court confirmed its initial ruling, finding that Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG had presented sufficient grounds for the preventive measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that the respondent's deliberate lack of cooperation in providing specific technical details justified the order, even if a direct risk of evidence destruction was not explicitly proven.
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.