European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 67 · 2,007 total
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute centered on the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents designated as confidential by the Defendants. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club allowing access to specific external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
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 3 430 921, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties had agreed to the stay, and the Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral proceedings planned for 20 October 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a confidentiality dispute in patent infringement proceedings before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications under rules 262A and 262.2 RoP to establish a confidentiality regime for certain documents. The court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUS entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents, with Ericsson requesting an 'external eyes only' regime while the defendants sought access for at least one natural person from each party. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a dispute over the admissibility of arguments regarding auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A in patent amendment proceedings. The defendants (Xiaomi entities) sought to have certain arguments from the plaintiff's reply disregarded as untimely. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that the plaintiff's reference to earlier explanations for combined auxiliary requests was sufficient under Rule 30.1(b) RoP, and that further deepening of arguments in the reply was permissible under Rule 32.3 RoP.
Nicoventures Trading Limited – Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_5/2025, APL_289/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_237/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP 3 430 921, in which Juul Labs International Inc. was the appellant and NJOY Netherlands B.V. was the respondent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the appeal is concluded. The remainder of the request, including blanket requests for unspecified or future documents, was dismissed.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (APL_322/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 504 991, citing its involvement in parallel EPO opposition proceedings against the same patent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically listed documents but dismissed the broader request for unspecified documents, imposing a condition that Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the UPC appeal is closed.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 770 330 B1, in which the court granted the claimant's application for an extension of time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP. The claimant had received a USB stick containing key annexes (MW 3 to MW 5, MW 17, and MW 27) only on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's late submission to the court registry, justifying the extension of deadlines for reply to the statement of defense and counterclaim for revocation from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd, a Korean LED chip manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 3 404 726 relating to ultraviolet light-emitting devices, brought an infringement action against Laser Components SAS before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. The court found that Laser Components' UVC LED chips (PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35, and PKD-H02-F35) infringed claims 1 and 18 of the patent, and granted injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure orders, while reserving the question of damages.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd and Others
This is a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680, which relates to video streaming technology. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants including Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Aylo Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC. The order at hand is a preparatory ruling by the judge-rapporteur structuring the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for May 7-8, 2025, identifying key issues for discussion including claim construction, the formulation of the plaintiffs' requests, and questions regarding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European patent n° 2 403 266. Samsung, as applicant, requested a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all Defendants, citing that service had not yet been effected on Defendant 1 in Korea and that other Defendants had been served on different dates. The parties agreed to a virtual service date of 5 May 2025, and the Presiding Judge granted the request, setting the deadline for the Statement of Defence to 5 August 2025 for all Defendants uniformly.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
The defendants (Nintendo) requested that certain sales and profit figures in their Statement of Defense and Exhibit BP08 be declared confidential under Rule 262A RoP, with access restricted to two named persons from the claimant. The claimant (Malikie Innovations) sought to extend access to two additional employees and challenged the scope of the confidentiality order regarding information obtained from third parties. The Court granted the confidentiality request, extended access to the two additional claimant employees, and held that the claimant bears the burden of verifying whether third parties disclosing such information are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., and bioMérieux Benelux BV
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. The court granted the plaintiff's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information, classifying certain cost-related details (invoice numbers, hourly rates, hours worked) submitted in cost determination proceedings as confidential. The court found the plaintiff's interest in confidentiality outweighed the defendants' interest in full access, particularly since the plaintiff did not seek to restrict the circle of entitled persons but only to prevent disclosure to third parties.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Following the parties' joint request, the court allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by Pfizer against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimants/counterclaimants.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. Following a January 14, 2025 decision that largely upheld the infringement claim and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, the defendants sought recovery of 9,732.21 EUR in costs. The court found the defendants had erroneously used a consolidated dispute value of 2,000,000 EUR instead of the 1,000,000 EUR value for the infringement claim alone, and awarded only 4,866.11 EUR in recoverable costs.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by various Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Both parties jointly requested the withdrawal, which the court allowed, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimants/Counterclaimants, with no cost decision required.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 186 937. With the consent of the parties, the court granted the application of Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) dated April 17, 2025, and ordered the stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 lit. a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of both the revocation action and its counterclaim for revocation, with Glaxo's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered no cost decision, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Pfizer.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed two key issues: whether the use of multiple lawyers and patent attorneys on one side affects cost recoverability, and whether costs from preliminary injunction proceedings are separately recoverable from the main proceedings. The court held that multiple representatives do not bar cost recovery as long as no additional costs are generated, and that the cost caps for interim proceedings and main proceedings must be determined separately.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding European Patent EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation, with reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and Glaxo consented. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and set the value in dispute at more than EUR 50,000,000.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Others v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 661 892. Amazon had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that rejected its request under Art. 59 EPGÜ and R. 190 RoP for disclosure of unredacted documents from Nokia. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the main infringement action was withdrawn, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's application for a 20% refund of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' request for preliminary measures. The court held that the withdrawal, filed after the oral hearing had already taken place on January 9, 2025, did not qualify for the 20% refund under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, because the oral proceedings had already been concluded with the end of the oral hearing.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a third-party request for access to case files. LIFE365, an Italian company involved in a parallel infringement and revocation proceeding in Italy regarding the same European patents (EP'230 and EP'669), sought access to the file of the UPC proceedings between HP and LAMA France. The court granted partial access, allowing LIFE365 to view only the pleadings related to the validity discussion (in redacted form where necessary), while denying access to documents concerning the infringement discussion, including the technical report.
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.