European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 25 of 73 · 2,185 total
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited, the sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 951 625 concerning an optical apparatus for bundling laser light, brought an infringement action against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG based on claim 6 of the patent. The action concerns alleged direct literal infringement, and subsidiarily direct equivalent infringement, in respect of the national parts of the patent in force in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania. The defendant filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim held an oral hearing on January 27, 2026 and rendered its decision on February 24, 2026.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
This procedural order of the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The order primarily addresses GSK's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claim in infringement action UPC_CFI_619/2025 to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products'. Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_283/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2026 concerning R. 262.1(b) Request for access to the case file - UPC_CFI_697/2025 APPLICANT Gowling WLG 38 avenue de l'Opera, 75002, Paris, FR Represented by Mari
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a. O.
This provisional procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 805 415 and was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in consolidated proceedings. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) filed a request to designate certain information as trade secrets or confidential information under Article 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The court addressed the defendants' requests regarding the protection of confidential information and the restriction of access to specific individuals.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP2590626. The primary issue is GSK's application under Rule 263 to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products.' Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et. al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division concerned EP 3 296 274, involving an infringement action by Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants including Hisense and TCL entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Hisense defendants. During the interim procedure, the claimant partially withdrew the infringement action against the Hisense defendants, and the Hisense defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to each other's requests. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed against the Hisense defendants, and ordered 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fees to the Hisense defendants.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (and Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited in the CFI main action) v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link had applied before the Local Division Munich for access to certain pleadings and annexes filed by Huawei and Netgear in related infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 678 321, after redaction of personal data. Netgear opposed the request, seeking its rejection or, alternatively, that TP-Link only receive access to fully redacted versions of the documents. The appeal proceedings concern the contested order of the Local Division Munich dated November 28, 2025.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A. and 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 17/02/2026 (R.19 Objection préliminaire) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1.b/ relative à « l’action porte sur la même cont
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Tec
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-17) under reference UPC-000080, Malikie Innovations Limited appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Tec concerning patent rights
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 2 548 648, involving Rematec GmbH & Co KG as the appellant (plaintiff in infringement proceedings and defendant in nullity counterclaim proceedings) and Europe Forestry B.V. as the respondent (defendant in infringement and counterclaimant in nullity). The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding the need to examine dependent claims when the independent claim is upheld, the obligation to issue a final decision rather than remand, and the requirements for ordering publication of decisions under Article 80 EPGÜ. The decision establishes important principles about the scope of appellate review in combined infringement and nullity proceedings.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
1 di 4 Milan Local Division UPC CFI n. 770/2024, n. 556/2025 ordinanza depositata il 13.2.2026 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. (‘Pirelli’) CONVENUTO Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd. (‘SYR’) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge-rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDI
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated an infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 563 695 B1 against seven defendants. The defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/competence or transfer to The Hague Local Division. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objections, and the defendants applied for panel review under R. 333 RoP, which was also rejected, though leave to appeal was granted.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH. a. o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer replenishing container and system. The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the defendants' toner bottles infringed the patent, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, damages, and publication of the operative part of the decision on the defendants' websites.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, filed a patent infringement action against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 on November 19, 2025. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff declared withdrawal of the action, and the defendant consented. Both parties jointly indicated that no cost decision was necessary due to an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This case concerns a claim for damages brought by Fives ECL, SAS against REEL GmbH relating to European Patent No. EP 1 740 740. The plaintiff filed a request for determination of damages on August 8, 2023, following a prior patent infringement proceeding between the parties before the Landgericht Düsseldorf. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the applicable law for lost profit claims, holding that national (German) law applies when the factual circumstances were completed before the Unified Patent Court came into force on June 1, 2023, and that both national law and the UPCA, being based on Directive 2004/48/EC, should yield the same assessment of lost profits.
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.