European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 73 · 2,185 total
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 UPC_CFI_369/2025 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 16/01/2026 EN-TETE : 1. Le brevet européen devenu unitaire et modifié de manière inconditionnelle, prend effet à la date de d
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED (2) NAGOR LIMITED (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS (6) EUROSILICONE SAS (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH (9) GC AESTHE v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The defendant failed to file a Defence to revocation within the two-month time period and did not respond to the action in any way. The claimant requested a decision by default, arguing that the patent should be revoked for extension of claim 1 beyond the application as filed, lack of novelty over prior art and public prior use, and lack of inventive step. The Court considered the conditions for a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation regarding European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for mobile Internet browsing using location data. Microsoft Corporation filed a counterclaim for revocation, and Suinno applied to amend the patent in response. The Court addressed the procedural requirements and admissibility criteria for such amendment applications, distinguishing between objective requirements (filing deadline, inclusion of at least one amendment, use of the official language) and matters of judicial discretion (clarity, sufficiency of explanation, reasonableness of number of amendments).
Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Comunication Co., Ltd a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Nera Innovations Ltd. following appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP against an order of the Hamburg Local Chamber dated 24 April 2024, which had rejected the claimant's request to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. through their German subsidiary. The court addressed the scope of reimbursable representation costs, the number of authorized representatives required, and the recovery of travel expenses for oral hearings. The decision establishes that appeal proceedings on specific procedural issues do not require more than one authorized representative and that the standard ceiling of reimbursable representation costs does not apply to such procedural appeals.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co v.EPO
1 Paris Central Division Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts UPC_CFI_1771/2025 betreffend das EP 3 327 608 erlassen am 30. Dezember 2025 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Das Einheitliche Patentgericht wendet gemäß Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 20 des Übereinkommens üb
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc., v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) dated 6 November 2025, which ordered it to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation following the early termination of an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 671 173. Suinno requested a reduction of the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the awarded amount was proportionate within the applicable ceiling of EUR 600,000 and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment of the recoverable costs.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Valéo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Centrale de Paris UPC_CFI_809/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2025 DEMANDEURS ROBERT BOSCH GmbH (Partie à la procédure au principal - Défendeur) 1 Robert-Bosch Platz 70839 GERLINGEN – DEUTSCHL
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust regarding European Patent EP 2 903 267 against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, INFINIX Mobility, TECNO Mobile, and several European distributors. On December 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a request to withdraw the action against all defendants, which was consented to by defendants 1-4 and 6-8, while defendant 5 (ASD SAS) did not appear. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 11,400) to the plaintiff.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et. al. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA a. o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 353 901, in which Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three Vantiva entities, and the Vantiva defendants filed a nullity counterclaim against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the main action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, with both sides consenting to the respective withdrawals. The parties agreed on cost allocation and requested the court to formally terminate the proceedings and order a partial refund of court fees.
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.