European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 67 · 2,007 total
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 742 231. The parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement and revocation proceedings, as well as the application to amend the patent, to facilitate pending settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)
Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in two pending infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) concerning European Patents EP2279254 and EP4241767, both owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The fifteen Moderna entities (Defendants) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review by the entire panel of a case management order dated 23 May 2025 concerning four preliminary objections, or alternatively seeking leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the Claimants be given one week to respond to the application.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, and Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 892 442 B1 in provisional measures proceedings. The respondent's requests for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing and for permission to participate via video conference were only partially granted: the respondent was allowed to hire an interpreter at its own cost, but the costs were not to be treated as procedural costs, and the blanket request for video conference participation was rejected.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Ex Parte
Order
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court found that SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH infringed EP 2 839 083 B9, owned by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, by manufacturing and selling pile tips (GS115, GS140, GS170). The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their products lacked a free-standing web, a flat support surface, or actual contact between the pile end and support surface, holding that the support surface only needs to be suitable for supporting the pile end. The court also upheld the validity of the patent in amended form and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, publication rights, and damages.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
Unified Patent Court decision.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc. (Counterclaim for Revocation – Application to Amend)
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 479 680, relating to a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. DISH Technologies and Sling TV (part of a telecommunications/satellite TV group) sued several entities of the Aylo adult entertainment group for alleged literal and equivalent indirect infringement based on the 'Auto' playback quality function in their streaming services. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent expired by lapse of time during the proceedings, and the court addressed issues of equivalence, the removal of dependent claims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
Insulet Corporation filed an application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding attorney's fees and expenses incurred in proceedings for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the application, holding that invoices from Insulet's law firm could be protected as confidential but the internal breakdown of costs and billable hours could not, and that the confidentiality club must include at least one natural person from each party.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns Insulet Corporation's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality over attorney fees and expenses incurred in proceedings against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to a preliminary injunction concerning European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the confidentiality request, holding that while litigation costs are not inherently confidential, invoices showing a patent owner's interest in defending its patent can be protected. The Court rejected Insulet's attempt to exclude EOFLOW's natural person from the confidentiality club, ordering that the unredacted exhibits be accessible to EOFLOW's legal representatives and its CEO Jesse Kim.
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 Care GmbH before the Central Division Paris concerning European Patent EP 2 196 231, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, after which Tandem Diabetes appealed. Following the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm it, which the Court did, terminating the appellate proceedings and confirming that each party bears its own costs.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside a portion of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division concerning the imposition of periodic penalty payments, ruling that such a decision under R. 354.4 RoP must be made by a panel rather than a single judge. The case was referred back to the Local Division for adjudication as a panel on Hybridgenerator's request that periodic penalty payments be imposed on the Respondents for alleged non-compliance with an evidence preservation order.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This procedural order concerns applications by multiple Moderna entities seeking rectification of a prior Procedural Order dated 23 May 2025 regarding Preliminary Objections filed in two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) involving European patents EP2279254 and EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Moderna argued that the dates of service on Moderna Germany, Moderna Belgium, and Moderna Poland were incorrectly stated in the prior order, which affected the admissibility of their Preliminary Objections. The court found the applications founded, holding that the dates constituted clerical mistakes rectifiable under R.353 RoP, and rectified the order to confirm that the Preliminary Objections filed on 24 April 2025 were admissible for all defendants.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH – Intervention of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The court granted Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd's application to intervene in support of the defendant Yunex GmbH, as neither party raised objections. The court also addressed the claimant's request for Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000, giving the intervener 10 days to respond and to file an intervention brief.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Defendants' request under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant as confidential. The court held that R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings, not to information ordered to be disclosed pursuant to a decision on the merits, and that the existing restrictions on the use of the information sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal concerning the temporal scope of the UPC's competence under Article 32(1) UPCA. The court held that the UPC has competence to hear an infringement action concerning acts that occurred both before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and its subsequent withdrawal, and that this does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP in an infringement and revocation action involving two European patents (EP '117 and EP '364). The Milan Local Division granted a partial stay of proceedings solely with respect to EP '117, holding that where all parties jointly request a stay, the Court has no discretion and must order it. The proceedings regarding EP '364 were allowed to continue as scheduled.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns a request by the Defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection regarding information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) under a prior decision of 11 March 2025. The court dismissed the request in its entirety, holding that Rule 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties, not to information ordered to be disclosed to the opposing party, and that the existing use restrictions inherent in the information order sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
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.