European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 73 · 2,185 total
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
Application RoP262A
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
Infringement Action
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
Infringement Action
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal from the Local Division The Hague's order granting provisional measures in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning the alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, upholding the preliminary injunction against the GlucoMen iCan product, finding that the UPC had jurisdiction, the patent was valid, and the requirements for provisional measures were met. The appellants were ordered to bear the costs and pay an interim award of €200,000.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it lacks jurisdiction over the cost decision application, which must instead be filed before the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The application to refer the cost decision to the CFI with a deemed filing date was dismissed.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order rejecting Rematec's request to transfer its cost assessment application to the Court of First Instance (Local Division Mannheim) with the original filing date preserved. The Court held that it lacked competence to decide on cost assessment, which must be initiated before the Court of First Instance, and that no exceptional circumstances justified a transfer. The underlying dispute concerned European Patent EP 2 548 648, where the Court of Appeal had previously reversed the first instance decision and granted Rematec's infringement claim on an auxiliary request while dismissing Europe Forestry's invalidity counterclaim.
Amazon.com, Inc. and others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional stenographer, based on an audio recording under Rule 115 RoP. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's order and held that producing a private transcript is permissible, provided it is clearly labeled as a private, non-authoritative document and used under specified conditions.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Paris seat) granted a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, a patent relating to light-emitting diodes owned by Seoul Viosys. The Court found that the independent claim contained added subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application, and that none of the patent proprietor's auxiliary requests could remedy this defect. Combined with the Court of Appeal's prior revocation of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 in parallel proceedings, the patent was revoked in its entirety as to the challenged claims.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi,
This revocation action concerns European patent EP 3 926 698 B1 relating to a light-emitting diode. The claimant sought revocation on grounds of added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, later adding a novelty ground. The defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form through multiple auxiliary requests. The Court addressed the consequences of a parallel Court of Appeal decision that had already revoked claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and ruled on the admissibility of subsequent amendments and late-filed evidence.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (in UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics CO., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870, to which Belparts responded with a counterclaim for infringement and an application to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and entered the decision on the register without issuing a cost decision.
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o. v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiffs withdrew the action and requested a 50% reimbursement of court fees, with the defendants consenting to the withdrawal. The parties had reached an out-of-court settlement under which each side bears its own costs, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
REEL International (claimant) v.Fives ECL (defendant)
1 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, Division centrale (Section Munich) rendue le 24 mars 2026 EN-TETE Le défaut d’intérêt à agir et l’autorité de la chose jugée, que le défendeur à une action invoque pour dénier à
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, had filed an infringement action regarding EP 4 426 414 against the Defendant, Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., and subsequently withdrew the action. The Court ordered the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (6,600 EUR) pursuant to Rule 370.9 RoP (2025), as the action was terminated before the closure of the written procedure.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and requested a partial refund of court fees. The defendant consented to both the withdrawal and the fee refund, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23 mars 2026 (R333 RdP révision d’une ordonnance) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1(b) AJUB relative au lien commercial entre le
HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH - Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH - Technical University of Munich v.Topsoe A/S
This order concerns HyGear B.V.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a case involving European patent EP3802413 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming. The main proceedings were initiated by Topsoe A/S against HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH, and the Technical University of Munich. The President of the Court of First Instance was asked to decide on the language change request pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with most parties consenting to the change except the Technical University of Munich.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 605 534, with Dolby International AB as the plaintiff and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. as defendants, relating to smart TV technology and standard-essential audio/video codecs. The dispute centers on FRAND licensing obligations and whether Dolby holds a dominant position on the relevant market. The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU may arise where smart TVs cannot be offered without a license to the patent in suit, given consumer expectations of codec compatibility. The court further ruled that under the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, if the alleged infringer fails to express willingness to take a license after being notified of infringement, the examination terminates without needing to assess whether the patent holder's offer is FRAND.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's denial of its requests under R. 262.2 RoP to classify certain business information as confidential. The court held that trade secrets or confidential information lose their protected character when disclosed to the opposing party without a R. 262A RoP order or other restriction, and that a R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically prevent the other party from disclosing the information.
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.