European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 67 · 2,007 total
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 decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiffs (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) and defendants 1 and 2 (Tandem Diabetes Care entities) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 3 to 6 were ordered to continue, and the settlement details were ordered to be kept confidential.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers pharmaceutical formulations of a HER2 antibody (Perjeta®). The applicants alleged that the defendants were preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®, potentially infringing the patent. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to conduct the evidence preservation and inspection at the defendants' premises, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the outcome.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information order related to the infringement of Philips' European Patent EP 2 867 997. The Court of Appeal reduced the coercive fine from €46,000 to €42,000, ordered a partial refund, and adjusted the cost allocation between the parties, while rejecting the further-reaching claims of both sides.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, in its entirety for all designated UPC contracting member states. The claimant alleged lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1 owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for viscous materials. The claimant argued lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, primarily based on prior art WO 99/18010. The Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1. The parties reached a settlement and jointly declared they had reached a comparison. The plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the action, which the defendants consented to, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and set the value in dispute at EUR 6,000,000.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned parallel revocation and infringement proceedings regarding European patent EP4201327 (unitary effect EP4201327C0) owned by Insulet Corporation, relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps. EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump product. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, and issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the infringement counterclaim due to its failure to file a Reply, ordering injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection dated February 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent sought to set aside the order, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of patent infringement and had not proven a risk of evidence destruction. The court rejected all of the respondent's arguments, confirmed the original order, and ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the review proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This appeal concerned an application by Centripetal Limited for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in relation to alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 821 580, which covers methods and systems for efficient network protection. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court revoked the impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division, finding that while Centripetal had demonstrated a plausible case of infringement and a risk of evidence destruction justifying an ex parte order, several of the requested measures went beyond what was necessary. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for a new decision consistent with the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 relating to apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) held that the patent was invalid on grounds of added matter, as it extended beyond the content of the parent application. The Court revoked the German part of the patent and ordered the Defendant to bear the costs.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Epson France SAS and four other Epson entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS objected under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out was invalid, as it did not cover all states where the patent had been granted. The court rejected the objection as unfounded, holding that the withdrawal was effectively declared for all relevant states through the CMS system and that the subsequent 'correction' was merely a clarification, and ordered the proceedings to continue.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of obvious inaccuracies in a decision pronounced on May 8, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff's correction request, finding the identified points to be obvious errors, and the defendant did not oppose the corrections. The corrections addressed various orders regarding information disclosure, accounting, destruction of infringing products, recall obligations, and damages, as well as a paragraph concerning auxiliary requests for maintenance of the patent.
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) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The order directs the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Application for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, to allow the claimant to file a rejoinder. The court reserved the question of whether a separate application and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
This order concerns an application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., as intervener supporting defendant STRABAG, for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Vienna. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly incorrect or that fundamental procedural rights were violated. The substantive issues regarding patent claim interpretation and infringement will be addressed in the appeal proceedings.
Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. et al.
This procedural order concerns two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against fifteen entities of the Moderna group before the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court, concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's international jurisdiction, local competence, and the validity of the opt-out withdrawal. The judge-rapporteur dismissed most of the preliminary objections, finding the applications inadmissible only with respect to Moderna Belgium, Moderna Germany, and (in part) Moderna Poland, and deferred the long-arm jurisdiction question to the main proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, Warmcook
Hurom Co., Ltd, a Korean kitchen appliance manufacturer, brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against NUC Electronics Co., NUC Electronics Europe, and Warmcook concerning European Patent EP 3 155 936 relating to juicers. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, alleging added matter (Article 123(2) EPC) and lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The Court revoked the Dutch, French, German, and Italian parts of the patent as amended, dismissed all infringement claims, and ordered Hurom to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation & Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited & Other Moderna Entities
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court addresses preliminary objections filed by fifteen Moderna group entities (the defendants) in two infringement actions brought by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The defendants challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local competence of the Hague division, long-arm jurisdiction for acts outside UPCA territory, and (in case 191/25) the validity of the opt-out withdrawal. The judge-rapporteur dismissed the preliminary objections on all substantive grounds, declared certain applications inadmissible for specific defendants, and deferred the long-arm jurisdiction question to the main proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich). The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings to concentrate on finalising ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur agreed to stay the proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP, cancelling the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action relating to EP 2 746 957. The Claimant sought review under R. 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's order dismissing its request to file a further written pleading under R. 12.5 and R. 36 RoP. The panel dismissed the application for review, confirming the judge-rapporteur's order on the grounds that the Claimant's request lacked sufficient substantiation and that the vague points raised did not justify allowing additional written submissions.
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.