European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 73 · 2,185 total
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that security for costs can only be ordered against the applicant (the party initiating the proceedings), not in their favor. In appeal proceedings, only the respondent on appeal may request security for costs, as the appellant is the party who initiates the appeal. The case involves an appeal by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd against a first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding patent infringement of EP 2 778 423.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:12:26 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:41 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:39:21 +01'00'
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communi
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:11:06 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:08 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:37:23 +01'00'
Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendant (HMD Global Oy) for the disclosure of licensing agreements cited by the Claimant (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) in its Statement of Claim and pre-trial negotiations, in two related infringement actions concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The Defendant argued that EU antitrust law requires the Claimant to behave transparently in license negotiations and to disclose relevant MPEG-4/AAC standard license agreements, including a bilateral agreement with a third party that allegedly gives rise to patent exhaustion. The Claimant partially agreed to submit its only currently in-force bilateral AAC patent license agreement, subject to confidentiality constraints, while challenging the broader request for disclosure of five historical license agreements with third parties.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This case concerns an application by Roborock (HK) Limited for review of an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1, owned by Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found that Ecovacs's presentation of facts for the ex-parte order was incomplete and potentially misleading, thereby violating Rule 192.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that such a breach renders the order unlawful in its entirety, as ex-parte orders depend entirely on the applicant's truthful and complete submissions.
DOCKET NAVIGATOR (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Polidoros S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. et.al.
Polidoro S.p.a., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 037 175 relating to a premixed burner (especially for condensation boilers), sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for alleged patent infringement. The patent was upheld in limited form following opposition proceedings, with the opposition decision published on 27 November 2024. The claimant sought injunctive relief, recall/removal, destruction, information, damages, and publication of the decision across several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for infringement related to European Patent EP3812870 between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (Claimant) and Belparts Group N.V. (Defendant). The central issue addressed is IMI's request for Belparts to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP, based on alleged economic vulnerability. Belparts opposes the request, arguing that defendants are not required to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and that its financial situation, supported by its patent portfolio and positive annual accounts, demonstrates it is not economically vulnerable.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. 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 a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning a file inspection request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. TP-Link sought access to certain filings and annexes submitted by Huawei and Netgear in infringement proceedings before the Local Division Munich involving EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent. Netgear and Huawei opposed the request, seeking its full rejection or, alternatively, limiting access to fully redacted versions of the documents.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
1 UPC_CFI_1262/2025 UPC_CFI_ 830/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 17/12/2025 concerning: access to file (R. 262.1(b)) Date of receipt of Application : 22/10/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) (Applicant) -
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an infringement action on December 16, 2024 against two defendants concerning European Patent EP 4 240 194, alleging that products Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX (and their Plus, Pro, and Pro Max variants) infringed the patent. While service was successfully completed against the Hong Kong defendant on May 29, 2025, service against the Shenzhen defendant failed twice because the Chinese central authority rejected the documents due to the naming convention used for Hong Kong. The Milan Local Division addressed whether Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies in the UPC system, concluding that it is entirely applicable regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS a.o.
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, in which Canon Kabushiki Kaisha is the Claimant and four entities (three Katun companies and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.) are the Defendants. The order addresses several interim procedural matters, including requests for reimbursement of damages and interim damages, a request for leave to amend the claim under Rule 263 RoP, a request to submit a further pleading under Rule 36 RoP, the contested issue of service on Defendant 3 (Katun Corporation), and the value of dispute. The Defendants declared willingness to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3 in order to reach an amicable solution, and the Claimant acknowledged that service was no longer contested.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH a. o. v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 061 575 B1, with the Austrian claimant M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH (joined by Katharina Schulz as third counter-defendant) asserting patent infringement against the Turkish defendant Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi. The dispute involved issues of indirect patent infringement, interim damages under Rule 119 RoP, and a counterclaim for revocation based on lack of inventive step. The court established key principles limiting recall and destruction remedies for indirectly infringing products, requiring plausible factual estimates for interim damages, and demanding substantive explanation of prior art combinations in revocation actions.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on December 4, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH in preparation for a future main action. The patent was granted on July 5, 2023, and is in force in twelve European countries including Germany. The applicant had previously revoked its opt-out from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court on November 21, 2025.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Amycell LLC v.***
1 Local Division The Hague UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 09/12/2025 regarding: R.356 and R.353 APPLICANT/DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Spyra (Applicant) - - - - Represented by Michal Przyluski RE
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Riferimento n. UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 DECISIONE della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti del 9 dicembre 2025 sulla concessione del risarcimento dei danni e delle spese NOTE (i) Ai sensi dell'articolo 68(1) Accordo TUB, la Corte, su richiesta della pa
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co . KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against EP 3 083 107 B1, in which the defendant Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG filed an objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure. Nanoval argued that the action was abusive, brought by a 'straw man' subsidiary of ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (which was already involved in parallel infringement and nullity proceedings before the Munich Local Division), creating double lis pendens. The defendant contended that the plaintiff and the Munich defendant were the 'same party' under Article 33 of the European Patent Convention Agreement, distinguishing the situation from Meril v. Edwards.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc. a. o.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 243 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim for revocation, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs and requesting reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
Centripetal Limited, the registered and sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1 relating to Methods and Systems for Efficient Network Protection, sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of the patent in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The patent was granted and published on 29 May 2024, and the prior opt-out was withdrawn from the register on 12 July 2024. The case was heard by a panel of the Local Division Mannheim on 9 October 2025, with a decision delivered on 5 December 2025.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
The Local Division in Copenhagen issued an order regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1, partially upholding a request for penalty payments against the defendant for delayed compliance with a prior evidence preservation order. The Court found that the defendant had delayed 36 days in providing requested login information for financial systems, email accounts, and a seized computer, without presenting substantiated circumstances justifying the delay. Considering the seriousness of the breach and principles of fairness and proportionality, the Court set the penalty at EUR 2,500 per day for the first 18-day period and EUR 1,250 per day for the subsequent 18-day period, resulting in a total fine of EUR 67,500.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
This is an order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning three related cases (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a merits decision on 21 July 2025 in case CFI 380/2023, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal (case T-241/25-3.2.02). The Court granted the stay and also provisionally granted the parties' confidentiality requests regarding certain cost application documents.
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.