European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 67 · 2,007 total
TGI Sport Suomi Oy (formerly Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (formerly Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l. (formerly Supponor Italia S.r.l.), and Supponor España SL v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned orders of the Helsinki Local Division granting AIM Sport Development AG leave to amend its Statement of claim under R. 263 RoP and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under R. 305 RoP in a patent infringement action. The appellants (TGI entities) challenged the orders on grounds of inadmissibility and procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion and that the scope of review on appeal regarding such discretionary decisions is limited.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Accord Healthcare Group & Novartis AG (Application for Access to Documents under Rule 262 RoP)
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH applied for access to documents filed in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action between the Accord Healthcare group and Novartis AG concerning EP2501384. After the main proceedings were settled and closed, Novartis withdrew its opposition to the access request, subject to redaction of personal data. The Court granted the application and instructed the Registry to produce redacted copies of the requested documents within 15 days.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH & Erwin Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action concerning EP 3 356 109 B1, directed at a frame for a vehicle with structural parts made of foam resin. The plaintiffs, who had developed the patented technology under a development agreement with the defendant (a caravan/motorhome manufacturer) but without any licensing arrangement, alleged that the defendant used their technology in models including the 'Travelino', 'Deseo', and 'Azur'. The court found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and awarded damages and compensation, while also addressing the interpretation of product-by-process claims and compensation under Article 67 EPC.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in proceedings regarding European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach to the case heading. The court granted the first correction as a clerical error but rejected the second, holding that parties are not entitled to have all attorneys from the same firm listed in the decision heading.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This procedural order concerns patent EP 3 296 274 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants, belonging to three competing groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG Electronics) and all represented by the same counsel, applied for separation of proceedings to avoid sharing sensitive supply chain information among competitors. The court rejected the applications, holding that any potential conflicts arose solely from the defendants' choice to be represented by identical counsel and that it was the representative's obligation to manage such conflicts internally.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others (Pfizer and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Epson Deutschland GmbH (Application for Access to Court File in Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş)
Epson Deutschland GmbH applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division for access to pleadings and evidence filed in the main infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 605 534 between Dolby International AB (claimant) and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş (defendants). Epson, which is being separately sued by Dolby before the Hamburg Local Division for alleged infringement of the same patent regarding projectors using Android TV, sought access to prepare its defence. The court partially granted the application, allowing Epson access to redacted versions of five specific pleadings, with further redactions concerning the interpretation and validity of the patent.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (UPC_CFI_501/2023 and UPC_CFI_676/2024)
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
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, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars S.p.A. (defendant in the main infringement proceedings) challenging the jurisdiction of the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Alpinestars argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction, including over 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 for European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning EP'117 and EP'364, applied for leave to limit its claims under Rule 263.3 RoP after the EPO Board of Appeal issued a negative opinion on EP'117, seeking to discontinue claims related to EP'117 while maintaining those regarding EP'364. The defendants argued the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP, entitling them to cost reimbursement. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP governs the limitation of claims, granted Dainese leave to limit its claims, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.S.L. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning two European patents (EP'364 and EP'117), filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse EPO Board of Appeal opinion, while maintaining claims regarding EP'364. The defendants opposed, arguing the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and sought cost decisions. The Milan Local Division granted leave to limit the claims under Rule 263.3 RoP, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of a preliminary injunction application filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The Lisbon Local Division held that R. 150 RoP can apply to cost decisions following the rejection of a preliminary injunction, and applied the principle of proportionality to award only the travel expenses of the representatives (EUR 4,946.22), rejecting the other claimed costs to avoid the risk of double assessment with the subsequently filed main action on the merits.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Samsung in a patent infringement action brought by Fingon LLC regarding EP 2 839 403. The defendants challenged the validity of the claimant's withdrawal of an opt-out and the UPC's temporal jurisdiction over acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force and during the opt-out period. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection, holding that questions of fact and law relevant to both jurisdiction and the merits should be reserved for the main proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Digital River Ireland Ltd. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by an Irish court, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the action against Digital River. The Court allowed the partial withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, directed Ericsson to file an amended Statement of Claim within 10 days, and granted AsusTek two months to file its Statement of Defence from service of the amended pleading.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
Corning Incorporated filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim concerning EP 3 296 274 against defendants from three separate corporate groups (Hisense, TCL, and LG). The defendants filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal, arguing they were mere distributors of LCD-TVs with no direct connection to the glass manufacturer and that joining three independent competitor groups in one action constituted an artificial splitting of cases violating fair trial principles. The court rejected the preliminary objections, holding that the Local Division Mannheim had competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for each defendant individually, that no obligation existed to sue OEMs and suppliers jointly, and that the defendants' fair trial arguments were unpersuasive.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.
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, and Pfizer, Inc.
This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors with specific anodized aluminum support features. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, added matter, and asserting a public prior use right. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement of the patent as amended, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, disclosure orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, requested a decision by default against the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, for failing to provide security for costs within the time limit set by the Court. The Court held that even where a party's default is evident and unjustified, it retains discretionary power and is not obligated to issue a decision by default. The application was rejected because the written pleadings at the time of default did not permit a sufficiently confident assessment of the contested validity of the patent and the absence of infringement, and the Court considered it more appropriate to proceed with an in-depth examination at the oral hearing.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 476 616, addressing the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent. The panel separated the UK-related claims and counterclaims into separate proceedings because a fundamental question of European law concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation was pending before the European Court of Justice (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte), and the parties had not had the opportunity to comment on the ECJ's subsequent decision.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application for an order requiring the Claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP4092759. The court held that the Defendants failed to provide concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost decision in China would be particularly difficult, and that the Claimant's domicile in a non-EU country alone cannot justify ordering security for costs.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning patent EP 3 296 274, in which defendants from the Hisense, TCL, and LG groups sought a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP pending a related action against the alleged glass manufacturer. The court rejected the stay applications, finding no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and ordered the parties to use a single workflow for future submissions.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
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.