European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 25 of 67 · 2,007 total
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order issued by 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 for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., requested an extension of the deadline for filing its reply brief by one week until 19 May 2025, due to delayed access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence and the late service of the Counterclaim for Revocation. The court granted the extension, finding it justified under the circumstances, and noted that the Defendants did not oppose the request.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 2727342 at the Milan Local Division. Following Digital River Ireland Ltd.'s insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland, both Ericsson and Digital River sought to withdraw their respective claims against each other. The Court allowed both withdrawals, with the main infringement action continuing against Asustek and Arvato, and ordered both parties to bear their own costs based on principles of fairness and equity.
Ona Patents SL & Ekahau Oy v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH & Apple Retail France EURL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing an application to protect confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the unredacted version of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence regarding the Application to amend the patent as confidential, restricting access to specified representatives and the CEO of the Claimant.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Another
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris's order granting access, holding that access to written pleadings and evidence should not be granted to members of the public who are not properly represented. The Court also held that compensation for costs should not be awarded in relation to such applications.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for payment of costs (€92,814.62) filed by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV following a final decision in infringement proceedings regarding EP 2 331 036. The respondent had filed an appeal against the main decision, and the Judge-Rapporteur ordered the suspension of the costs procedure pending the outcome of the appeal, requiring the parties to inform the court once the Court of Appeal renders a decision on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. and Others
This is an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, brought by Evac Oy against six defendants. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, while ordering that the proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain, VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) continue.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and Others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (Application No. APP_17389/2025, UPC_CFI_86/2025)
The Walt Disney group entities and BAMTech (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2465265 was granted. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (the Claimant) opposed the request. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in proceedings for interim measures, after the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. Neither party objected to the addition within the given deadline.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 4 201 327 relating to fluid delivery devices (insulin patch pumps), sought provisional measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for allegedly infringing the patent with its EOPatch and GlucoMen Day Pump products. The Milan Central Division (Court of First Instance) rejected the application, finding claim 1 likely lacked novelty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Court of First Instance improperly delegated claim construction to an expert, and granted the provisional measures against EOFLOW across multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action. All parties agreed that service on all defendants should be deemed uniformly effected on 30 April 2025 to avoid service abroad and associated translations. The court granted the defendants' request, establishing uniform deadlines for preliminary objections and statements of defence across all defendants.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
Juul Labs International Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties agreed to the stay, and the EPO Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral hearings scheduled for 14 November 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the expected date of the Court of Appeal oral hearing.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
AGFA NV v.Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and Others
AGFA NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 relating to a method for decorating natural leather using an achromatic base coat and inkjet-printed colour image, sued nine Gucci entities for infringement concerning the 'Pikarar Collection.' The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with costs split 40% to the Claimant and 60% to the Defendants.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2449782 was granted. InterDigital opposed the request, arguing no significant disadvantage had been shown. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in responding to ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
This is a cost decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought reimbursement of its costs from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal, resolved an inconsistency in the amount claimed, and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC and Others
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and European automotive dealers/distributors, based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. Following a settlement reached between the parties, ArcelorMittal applied on 7 April 2025 to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (6,600 euros out of 11,000 euros paid).
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) issued a cost decision following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. The applicant, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, sought reimbursement of costs from the respondents, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62, ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally within three weeks.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
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.