European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 73 · 2,185 total
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet sur la recevabilité de l’appel contre une ordonnance statuant sur une objection préliminaire rendue le 11 février 2026 EN-TETE Une ordonnance du juge-rapporteur qui fait droit à l’objection préliminaire mais ne met p
SCHNELL S.P.A., A.W.M. S.R.L v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This order concerns an application for a cost decision filed by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation in UPC CFI no. 178/2024 and no. 432/2024. The respondent Progress Maschinen & Automation AG argued that its appeal against the first instance decision, filed on 11.12.2025, had automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA, rendering the cost application untimely. The applicants countered that R. 150 RoP does not require finality and that the suspensive effect should be limited to the revocation portion of the decision. The Court rejected the applicants' restrictive interpretation, holding that the automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Europäisches Patentamt (EPA)
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP1969839, brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of both actions under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, along with a 40% reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side, dismissing the request for a higher reimbursement percentage.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Centripetal Limited's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's revocation of a Saisie Order that had granted Centripetal's application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in connection with European patent EP 3 821 580. The Court held that Centripetal's amended requests submitted on appeal, which sought to broaden the scope of the original Saisie Order, were inadmissible because they were filed for the first time on appeal without justification and seriously prejudiced Palo Alto's ability to defend itself.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-04) under reference UPC-000096, Bostic, Inc. appeared in dispute with Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
KEEEX SAS, v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 04/02/2026 Concernant une demande de décision par défaut (R.158.5 et R. 355.1 RdP) DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS 5 rue de Lissandre 13013 MARSEILLE - FR Représenté par Thibaud
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti relativa a una istanza di svincolo della garanzia ai sensi della regola 352, paragrafo 2, del Regolamento di procedura emessa il 3 febbraio 2026 ISTANT
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., 2. Andreas Rentmeister e.K.;
This procedural order concerns the service of a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. The Applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., had sought provisional measures against the Defendants, but service on the China-based Defendant 1. proved impossible through the Chinese Central Authority, which certified that no such company existed at the address provided. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, with the names of the parties and file number, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1, following infringement proceedings in which the court found partial infringement of claim 14 and ordered costs to be borne 30% by the Claimant and 70% by the Defendant. The Claimant sought reimbursement of costs from both the preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings and the main proceedings, arguing that the cost ceilings should be combined. The court held that PI proceedings and main proceedings have separate cost ceilings, that costs cannot be shifted between the two, and that in cases of partial success, the ceiling must be reduced proportionally to the success rate.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH. et. al.
This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Alpinestars before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an order of the Milan Local Division that separated proceedings concerning two European patents (EP '364 and EP '117). After the Local Division amended its impugned order and granted leave to appeal, Alpinestars withdrew its request for discretionary review. The Court of Appeal declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Alpinestars.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l.,KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 27 January 2026 in consolidated proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025. The order addresses procedural matters including the exploration of settlement, clarification of the Claimant's conditional auxiliary requests filed under R. 30.1 RoP, the admissibility of late-filed technical drawings (Annexes 27/28–33/34), and the parties' agreement on the use of a specific equivalence criterion from a prior UPC decision. The Court deemed the late-filed annexes admissible while reserving judgment on their relevance, and confirmed that the auxiliary requests would only be assessed if the counterclaim for revocation is upheld.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA. a. o.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1. Nanoval had previously filed an infringement action against ALD France's parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH) at the Munich Local Division, where the parent had already filed a nullity counterclaim. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that ALD France lacked a separate interest in filing its own nullity action. The court held that a subsidiary's own business activity establishes an independent interest in filing a nullity action, and that related companies are not automatically the 'same party' under Article 33(4) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement merely because one is the parent of the other.
Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l, Amazon EU S.a.r.l., Amazon Media EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc. Amazon.com Services LLC v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS
1 ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM Pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 26 January 2026 KEYWORDS - Change of the language of the proceedings – Art. 49 (5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This order from the Court of Appeal addresses a request under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the confidentiality of information in written pleadings or evidence. The Court clarified that only Rule 262A RoP permits restricting the opposing party's use of confidential information, and that a Rule 262.2 request does not automatically grant provisional protection against disclosure. The Court further explained the proper procedure for confidentiality orders, including the requirement to file a simultaneous Rule 262A application when lodging confidential documents, and noted that documents uploaded under HC code without a legal basis will routinely be reclassified to M code to ensure access by the other parties.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and APPLE Inc. (intervener)
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The Court addressed the proportionality of measures protecting confidential information, balancing the right to an effective remedy and fair trial against the interests of parties and third parties. Key issues included whether employees of a party should be granted access to confidential information, the treatment of licence agreement information, and the liability framework for breaches of confidentiality obligations.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B.
This Final Order of the Court of Appeal concerns an application for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (as appellant/claimant) and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. (as respondents/defendants, jointly 'ASUS'). The Court addressed the proportionality of confidentiality measures, particularly regarding access to confidential information by employees of the parties and the application of an 'External Eyes Only' regime. The Court established that employees of a party should generally be granted access to confidential information, subject to appropriate judicial control, and that potential harm to third parties from licensing-related confidential information may be mitigated by barring the employee from involvement in licensing negotiations for a defined period.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendant, Nordmeccanica S.p.A., to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited based on European patent EP3067437. The Defendant argued that neither party has a business connection with Germany, that English is the prominent language in the relevant technical field, and that the change would promote procedural economy. The Claimant did not submit additional comments on the merits of the application.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 29 August 2025, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989 under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, but the Registrar rejected it as filed outside the one-year transition period from the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The President held that the one-year time limit in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules is not discriminatory and dismissed the petition.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 and involves a dispute between Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. (applicant) and Inverquark Deutschland GmbH and Inverquark GmbH (respondents). The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the respondents' trade fair stand at 'Aquanale Köln' on October 30, 2025. After initially indicating they would seek review of that order, the respondents withdrew that intention and instead requested the appointment of a supplementary expert opinion and the release of the detailed description prepared by the court-appointed expert.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE DE PROCEDURE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 21 janvier 2026 APPELANTE ET DEMANDERESSE A L’ACTION EN CONTREFAÇON DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE INSTANCE VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY CEDEX, FRANCE (ci-après dé
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl,
Nagravision Sàrl filed an infringement action against Pinterest entities based on EP 3965466. The Pinterest defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the domiciliation of the parties and the need for efficient coordination among multiple defendants. The order addressed the application for language change and the question of whether existing pleadings and documents should be translated.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany
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.