European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 67 · 2,007 total
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a first-instance decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The first-instance court had found that Knaus Tabbert infringed European Patent EP 3 356 109 (relating to a vehicle frame with foam resin structural parts) and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and provisional damages. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's requests, holding that ordering security for enforcement is discretionary and that facts requiring such security must be raised at first instance.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., and Siemens Healthcare SAS
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH filed a revocation action against Ballinno B.V. seeking to revoke European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1, which relates to a 'Method and system for detecting an offside situation.' The patent was owned by Ballinno and was in force in Germany and the Netherlands. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) revoked the patent with effect for Germany and the Netherlands, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs, and set the value of the proceedings at up to EUR 1,000,000.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
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 procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court granted the request of Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order classifies certain information contained in unredacted versions of specific annexes as confidential and restricts access to a limited number of named persons on the plaintiffs' side.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) against Roku, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich after Roku filed a US lawsuit seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions. The court initially granted the interim measures ex parte, but upon Roku's request for review, found the application moot after Roku amended its US complaint and provided cease-and-desist declarations. The court ordered Roku to bear the costs, holding that a prior warning was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated court proceedings for an ASI/AEI.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns a review application by Roku, Inc. regarding an ex parte order granting Dolby International AB an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) before the Local Chamber Munich. The court declared the application for interim measures moot and the proceedings terminated, but held that Roku bore the costs because a prior cease-and-desist letter was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated US proceedings seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions against Dolby.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Order
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 1 957 544 B1, addressing the Applicant's request to classify certain financial information as confidential under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the confidentiality order, classifying specific financial information in the Applicant's comments and Exhibit HL 15 as confidential, while rejecting the Defendant's arguments that the information was publicly available. Access was limited to the Defendant's representatives and one named administrative employee, with penalties for culpable breach.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP1998604, owned by Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. against Spiridonakis Bros GP (who did not appear). The court ordered an on-site inspection of the patented device and the allegedly infringing Bellota tool at the claimant's facility in Cremona, as transporting the approximately 2-ton agricultural machine to the courtroom was impractical. The court clarified that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad basis for the court to perceive the functionality of embodiments, encompassing inspections, experiments, and comparative tests.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC filed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 746 957 against three Texas Instruments entities before the Local Division Mannheim. The claimant applied under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case to add the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment, arguing it discovered the new product only after the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and would hinder their defence. The court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing and granted the defendants until 11 June 2025 to respond in substance.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V. v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant (Centripetal Limited) applied for leave to amend its case under R. 263 RoP to include references to the alleged software solution 'Threat Simulator' and the alleged gateway component 'ThreatARMOR' in its Reply. The Court postponed the final decision on whether to grant leave to amend until the oral hearing at the latest, allowing Defendants to respond to the new submissions in their Rejoinder by the extended deadline of 13 June 2025.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant requested permission to file a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to the Defendants' rejoinder, particularly regarding new arguments on Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0. The court partially postponed the final decision on admission of further written submissions until the oral hearing, granting the Claimant two weeks to submit a response strictly limited to AVS Class 0, with Defendants given two weeks to reply, while dismissing the request in all other respects.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Huawei sought an order to protect confidential information and trade secrets contained in its complaint. The court granted the request in part, classifying the grey-highlighted information and marked attachments as confidential and ordering all participants in the proceedings to treat them as such, while declining to impose access restrictions on the defendants themselves.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. Following a main decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and maintaining the patent in restricted form, the plaintiff sought reimbursement of EUR 84,950 in costs. The defendant objected that the costs were disproportionate given the limited infringement period and modest economic significance. The court rejected the objections, finding the defendant failed to provide substantiated arguments on disproportionality, and ordered full reimbursement of the capped amount.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 536 712 B1, owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and exclusively licensed to Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, which claims a second medical use of a PCSK9 inhibitor for reducing lipoprotein(a) levels in specific patient populations. The Claimants alleged that Amgen's marketing of Repatha® (evolocumab) infringed the patent, while Amgen counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimants failed to prove infringement of the second medical use claim while the Defendants failed to establish that the patent claims lacked novelty or inventive step.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division in connection with the Connected Ball Technology used at UEFA EURO 2024. After the Local Division dismissed its application for lack of urgency and insufficient proof of infringement, and ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs, Ballinno appealed but withdrew its request for a provisional injunction because the tournament had already taken place. The Court of Appeal held the appeal on security for costs admissible and set out principles for costs allocation, indicating that a party who builds its case on a single event and withdraws after the event passes must generally bear the costs as the unsuccessful party.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Unified Patent Court decision.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., and Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This procedural order concerns a panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's decision dismissing the Defendants' application to order the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4092759. The Hamburg Local Division rejected the Defendants' request for panel review, finding they had not presented concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost order in China would be unduly burdensome, while granting leave to appeal on the basis that questions regarding the scope and requirements of Rule 158 RoP security applications are of significance beyond the individual case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and Others (STADA Nordic ApS and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1, titled 'Kreiselpumpenaggregat' (centrifugal pump assembly), directed at heating circulation pumps. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent by offering and distributing heating circulation pumps in Germany, France, and Italy, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for revocation. The defendant was ordered to cease infringement, provide information, render accounts, recall infringing products, and pay provisional damages of EUR 64,000.
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.