European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 54 · 1,592 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of an action becoming 'devoid of purpose' when a claimant withdraws its urgent requests for provisional measures. The case involved Ballinno B.V., patent holder, and UEFA/Kinexon companies regarding offside detection technology. The court clarified that claimants who take the inherent risk of basing their strategy on temporary events must accept the consequence of bearing costs if the interest expires before a final ruling.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the varying service dates of three related ZTE entities. The court ruled that to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, all parties agreed to harmonize the deadlines for submitting defenses and revocation counterclaims. This decision establishes a uniform timeline across the group defendants, streamlining the ongoing litigation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC costs decision addressed the reimbursement of litigation expenses following a successful infringement action. The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing ratio established in the merits judgment (80% borne by the defendant). However, applying proportionality principles, the court significantly reduced the recoverable legal fees requested by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, ultimately awarding a total of €77,064.65 to the claimant.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over security for costs in an infringement action involving solar technology patents. The Defendants sought to compel the Claimant, based in China, to provide adequate financial security due to perceived difficulties in enforcing UPC judgments in China. However, the Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the requesting party. While the initial application was dismissed, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Defendants regarding the scope and requirements of security requests.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB
Sanofi initiated infringement actions against Accord Healthcare and related entities concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, which covers a specific compound combination for treating advanced prostate cancer. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the case schedule, including an interim conference in September 2025 and the main oral hearing in October 2025. This ruling moves the litigation into its substantive phase, setting the stage for detailed arguments on infringement and validity.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Grundfos Holding A/S sued Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for infringing its patent covering a specialized heating circulation pump unit with electronic switching capabilities. The court found infringement, allowing Grundfos to pursue an injunction and damages against the respondent's sales in Germany, France, and Italy. However, the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed, highlighting the strict procedural hurdles required for introducing new prior art during litigation.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning penalty payments related to EP 4 238 202. The parties, despite being Danish companies represented by Danish counsel, mutually agreed to change the language of the limited-scope proceedings from Danish to English. The court granted this request, finding it convenient and fair for a quicker adjudication process. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in adapting procedural rules based on party consent.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against various generic manufacturers, including Accord Healthcare and STADA, concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The case is currently moving through its written phase toward substantive litigation.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim sought a preliminary injunction at the UPC against Zentiva Portugal regarding the generic version of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Boehringer alleged imminent infringement, but the Court ultimately rejected the application for provisional measures. However, in a notable cost allocation decision, the Court ordered Boehringer to pay the interim legal costs incurred by Zentiva, setting a precedent on how costs are determined even when the main relief is denied.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and various Accord Healthcare entities, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.)
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against various defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA Nordic ApS, concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the litigation schedule, setting deadlines for written submissions, and confirming dates for interim and oral hearings in late 2025. This case highlights the complex multi-defendant nature of pharmaceutical infringement suits within the unified patent court framework.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Barco NV
Yealink filed an application seeking to rectify a previous Final Order concerning legal costs in the UPC case against Barco. Yealink argued that the original order was flawed regarding the cost award amount. However, the Local Division Brussels dismissed the rectification request, holding that the initial decision was legally sound and consistent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of R. 353 RoP, emphasizing that procedural corrections must be limited to clear errors rather than re-evaluations of legal reasoning.
Sanofi SA (successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against Accord Healthcare concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The parties are now moving into the substantive phase of the litigation after initial filings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed procedural matters concerning an ongoing infringement and revocation action involving Ericsson. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought to withdraw its claim against that defendant, which was subsequently allowed. The Court ruled on the allocation of costs for these withdrawal proceedings, finding that equity dictated both parties bear their own expenses, despite initial disagreement.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action involving Ona Patents SL against Apple Inc., the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a critical Procedural Order on May 6, 2025. The ruling focused not on the merits of the patent dispute but on establishing strict confidentiality protocols for sensitive information submitted during the proceedings. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing trade secrets and proprietary data within high-stakes litigation.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters, specifically the requirements for representation and public access to court documents. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot represent their company in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process considerations. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that applications seeking access to the register generally do not qualify for cost compensation under the UPC rules. This decision is significant for practitioners as it reinforces strict procedural requirements regarding representation and sets clear boundaries on recoverable costs related to public disclosure requests.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues, specifically concerning public access to the register and the rules governing representation in court. The court established that an individual holding a high-level management position within a party cannot simultaneously act as their authorized representative before the UPC. Additionally, it firmly ruled against awarding compensation for costs related to requests for public access to pleadings, setting clear boundaries on procedural expenses.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues concerning public access to court documents and representation requirements. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot simultaneously act as their own representative in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process. Additionally, the ruling clarified that cost compensation is generally not available for requests made under R. 262.1(b) RoP regarding public access to the register.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed the complex litigation involving Evac Oy and multiple defendants regarding vacuum drainage equipment patents. The court formally confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and three of the five respondents (Respondents 4-6). Crucially, the proceedings against the remaining primary defendants (1, 2, and 3) were allowed to continue, indicating that the core infringement dispute remains active.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC decision concerns a request for costs determination in the context of an ongoing infringement case. The court suspended the cost procedure because the defendant had filed an appeal against the initial ruling. This highlights the principle that final cost allocation must wait until the main dispute is definitively resolved by the appellate body, ensuring legal certainty and preventing fragmented judgments.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
In this UPC infringement action, 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a detailed procedural order (UPC_CFI_140/2024). The order sets the stage for the oral hearing, establishing strict time limits for initial arguments and requiring both parties to submit preparatory materials, including English translations of their claims and preliminary cost estimates. This decision highlights the rigorous procedural management inherent in UPC litigation.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, citing fairness and considering all relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA. The ruling reinforces that the defendant's position is a decisive factor when weighing interests in such procedural matters.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought interim relief against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding EP 2 892 442 B1. Although the core dispute is ongoing, the respondent challenged the patent's validity (novelty and inventive step). The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that given the technical complexity and the challenge to validity, it was necessary to appoint an additional technically qualified judge to assist the panel early in the proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for provisional measures in an infringement case involving insulin pump technology. Insulet sought disclosure and injunctions against EOFlow regarding the alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327. While settlement discussions occurred, the court issued a detailed order setting out specific requests, including mandatory disclosure of origin and distribution channels from EOFlow, backed by significant periodic penalty payments for non-compliance. The ruling reinforces core legal principles governing claim construction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.; Anker Technology (UK) Ltd.; Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V.; Anker Innovations Ltd.; Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH; Fantasia Trading LLC
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Mannheim Local Division addressed issues related to service dates and deadlines. The parties successfully negotiated a uniform date of service for all defendants, which allowed the Court to set consistent timelines for preliminary objections and statements of defense across all involved entities. This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC in managing complex multi-jurisdictional litigation through party consent.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV brought an infringement action against various Gucci entities concerning the patent EP3388490, which covers methods for decorating natural leather using inkjet printing. Simultaneously, a counterclaim for revocation was filed. The Hamburg Local Division ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim. This decision highlights the court's strict approach to procedural fairness, particularly regarding how claims are interpreted and when new evidence can be introduced during validity challenges.
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.