European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 67 · 2,007 total
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant seeks full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty/inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter, while the Defendant seeks dismissal and alternatively proposes 40 auxiliary requests (in two alternative forms, totaling 80) to maintain the patent in amended form. In this Case Management Order, the Judge-rapporteur found the number of auxiliary requests unreasonable and directed the Defendant to limit and/or re-order them, while also addressing case valuation, costs, and offering to facilitate a settlement discussion.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. – Access Request in Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France (UPC_CFI_358/2023)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning a third-party access request by LIFE365 (Italian companies) to the case file in an infringement action between Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) and LAMA France regarding European patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. LIFE365 sought access to use arguments and evidence from the UPC proceedings in parallel Italian proceedings before the Court of Genoa. The Judge-Rapporteur granted partial access limited to pleadings concerning validity discussions, while rejecting access to infringement-related documents including the technical report.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) issued an order in two parallel infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against fifteen Moderna group entities concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The court rejected Moderna's request to extend the deadline for filing Preliminary Objections and set a unified deadline of 8 July 2025 for all defendants to file their Statements of Defense, finding that the Moderna entities belong to the same corporate group and likely already had knowledge of the claims.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings against defendants 2 to 4 pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed by multiple Moderna entities (defendants in the main infringement proceedings) seeking extensions of deadlines to file preliminary objections and statements of defense in two UPC infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The court rejected the request to extend the preliminary objection deadline and set a unified deadline of 8 July 2025 for all defendants to file their Statements of Defense, balancing the UPC's objective of expeditious proceedings with the practical difficulties arising from service on fifteen co-defendants across multiple jurisdictions.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. and Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. With the consent of all parties, the court ordered the stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure based on the plaintiff's application dated April 9, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Kodak's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. The Local Division had found infringement, ordered a permanent injunction with penalties, damages, information, destruction and recall orders, and dismissed Kodak's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision contained manifest errors justifying an exception to the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680 in an infringement action. The defendants sought permission under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional written submissions regarding allegedly contradictory statements made by the first plaintiff (DISH Technologies) in a parallel US proceeding before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning a related patent (US 8,868,772). The court rejected the application, holding that a party's differing interpretation of another patent in a separate proceeding is not admissible interpretation material for the patent in suit, and that the defendants failed to justify why they could not have introduced the relevant technical facts earlier in the proceedings.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. applied for an order requiring AorticLab srl to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425 before the Local Division Munich. The court held that a party filing a counterclaim for revocation qualifies as an 'Applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA and can request security for costs, and found that AorticLab's own statements about potential insolvency created a legitimate concern regarding recoverability of costs. The court ordered AorticLab to provide security of €200,000.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The court addressed Heraeus's request to extend its reply deadline and Vibrantz's request for clarification of deadlines. The court corrected the start date of Heraeus's reply period to March 18, 2025, when its UPC representative was granted access to unredacted documents, but rejected the extension request, holding that vacation plans of Confidentiality Club members cannot affect procedural deadlines.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request by Siltronic AG to review an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends used in semiconductor wafer cutting. The court held that the original order, which included inspection of premises and seizure of delivery notes and invoices, was appropriate to secure evidence of alleged infringement. The court also found that the existing confidentiality regime sufficiently protected the respondents' interests.
Alpinestars Research S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. (Defendant No. 2) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the UPC Milan Local Division, particularly with respect to alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including over alleged infringement of European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants (expert companies) sought to recover €111,000 in costs after the patent was revoked and the infringement action was dismissed. The court rejected the cost assessment application as inadmissible because it was filed more than one month after the decision was served, as required by Rule 151 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 concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The claimants sought recognition of attempted service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) as valid, or alternatively substituted service, after the registered letter was notified for collection but left unclaimed. The court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed service on Defendant 4 effective on 14 March 2025, ordering the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
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 from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC and Others
The plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, sought severance of its patent infringement action against the fifth defendant (Flextronics International Europe B.V.) from the proceedings against the other four defendants under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich rejected the severance request, finding that joint proceedings served procedural economy because the cases concerned the same allegedly infringing embodiment and overlapping infringement questions, and that any delays were attributable to the plaintiff's own error in initially suing a non-existent party.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V.
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
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 from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the continuation of written proceedings in an infringement action regarding EP 4 108 782. The claimants had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4, and the court ordered the immediate continuation of the written procedure to preserve the agreed oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025. The court set deadlines for the parties' further written submissions and requested confirmation regarding an interim conference.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan concerning a revocation action filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. against Insulet Corporation's European Patent EP4201327, which relates to fluid delivery devices for insulin management. The court dismissed EOFLOW's request for further written submissions, declared US patent 6656159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late-filed prior art, and ordered EOFLOW to provide EUR 500,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
Ericsson GmbH and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
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.