European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 54 · 1,592 total
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. sought provisional measures against Yealink entities regarding the European patent EP 3 732 827. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no sufficient urgency to warrant preliminary relief. While denying the injunction, the court clarified several important procedural matters, including its own territorial competence and the cumulative nature of requirements for granting provisional measures. This decision serves as a reminder to applicants that demonstrating immediate necessity is paramount in urgent UPC proceedings.
Accord Healthcare Group (Accord) v.Novartis AG
This procedural order addressed an application by ZENTIVA K.S. and ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA to intervene in a main infringement proceeding between Accord Healthcare and Novartis regarding the drug nilotinib (EP2501384). The court dismissed ZENTIVA's request, establishing a strict requirement for direct legal interest when seeking intervention under Rule 313 RoP. This decision reinforces that parallel interests based on similar factual situations are insufficient grounds to join proceedings.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France and Mul-T-Lock Suisse
In this preliminary objection case (UPC_CFI_702/2024), the UPC Division Locale de Paris addressed a challenge by Mul-T-Lock regarding its jurisdiction over national designations of EP 4153830 in non-unitary states like Switzerland and Spain. The Court rejected the objection, affirming that the UPC maintains competence to handle these cases. This decision reinforces the principle of centralized dispute resolution within the UPC framework, promoting legal certainty for patent holders.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
In this UPC case involving packaging technology, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an order setting out the procedural path forward for both infringement and revocation claims. The court decided to combine the two actions into a single proceeding, citing efficiency and the benefit of a unified interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision streamlines complex patent litigation, allowing claimants and defendants to address validity and infringement simultaneously.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
In a procedural order issued on March 19, 2025, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed case UPC_CFI_665/2024 (Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney). The court rectified a minor typo in the existing scheduling order. This administrative step confirms that the infringement action remains active and sets the date for the oral hearing on January 15, 2026. While no substantive legal rulings were made, this highlights the ongoing procedural management of complex UPC litigation.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement proceeding involving solar technology. The Court ultimately granted the request, despite the Claimant's argument that non-EU domicile alone should not be grounds for such an order. The ruling hinged on practical difficulties faced by European courts when serving documents in China, specifically citing issues related to the Hague Service Convention. This case highlights how procedural enforcement challenges can override general principles of jurisdiction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs decision addressed the allocation of legal fees arising from a complex infringement and revocation action involving EP 3 225 320. The court scrutinized the reasonableness and necessity of the defendant's extensive cost claims, including those related to 'strategic considerations.' Ultimately, the court partially granted the claim for costs, ordering the claimant to pay €33,224.50 to the respondent. A key procedural point was the rejection of interest on awarded costs.
Sanofi (various entities) v.Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H.
This procedural order addressed Medac's attempt to withdraw an application concerning a privileged and confidential document (Exhibit 2) that had been uploaded into the UPC system. The court permitted the withdrawal but issued a strong warning against Medac's representative for negligently breaching the Code of Conduct by uploading the unredacted material. This decision underscores the strict procedural requirements regarding confidentiality and evidence handling within the UPC framework.
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v.DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC granted an order to preserve evidence in a dispute concerning item dispensing technology. Data Detection Technologies Ltd. sought to seize and document a competitor's machine (C-1012) displayed at a trade fair, alleging it infringed EP 2569713. The Court found that DDT had sufficiently established its patent rights and presented reasonable evidence of potential infringement, allowing the urgent ex-parte measure to proceed.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a global leader in snow grooming vehicles, successfully obtained an urgent provisional measures order from the UPC CFI against Xelom S.R.L. The court authorized inspection of premises and seizure of the disputed electric snow groomer ('Snow Cat'). This decision is significant as it allows patent holders to secure evidence early in litigation when infringement is suspected but not yet proven.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG to mutually withdraw their infringement claim and counterclaim concerning EP 3 866 051. The court formally terminated the proceedings based on this agreement. Crucially, the decision also addressed procedural fairness by ordering a partial refund of court fees for the defendant, setting an example for how timing issues affect financial outcomes in UPC litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V., Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust initiated infringement proceedings against Roku International and Roku Inc. The defendants raised a major jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the EPC is incompatible with EU law (EUV/AEUV). The Local Division of Munich rejected this opposition argument, affirming the court's jurisdiction to hear the infringement claim. Consequently, the revocation counterclaim was dismissed, allowing the main infringement case to proceed, and an appeal against this decision was admitted.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
Adeia Guides Inc. initiated infringement proceedings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 2 793 430. This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich confirms that the case will proceed as a dual action, encompassing both the infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation. Key dates have been set, including an interim conference in December 2025 and the main oral hearing in January 2026, signaling the active progression of this high-stakes IP dispute.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 3 490 258. The defendants raised a complex jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the UPC's legal basis was incompatible with EU law. The court decisively rejected these arguments, confirming its jurisdiction based on the claimants' assertions. Consequently, the exception was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed, setting the stage for further litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 2 903 267. The defendants raised significant jurisdictional challenges, arguing that the EPCG was incompatible with EU law (AEUV/EUV). The court decisively rejected these arguments, affirming the UPC's jurisdiction over both current and past acts of alleged infringement. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed MediaTek Inc.'s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction in an infringement case brought by Daedalus Prime LLC. The claimant alleged that MediaTek was liable for supplying processors used in infringing Xiaomi smartphones marketed across UPC territories. The court ruled that despite MediaTek's non-domicile status, international jurisdiction is established because the patent has effect in Member States and a commercial relationship exists between the parties. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to continue.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences sought protection for sensitive financial details related to its costs in an ongoing infringement action. The UPC Local Division Munich granted the request under Rule 262.2 RoP, recognizing that while proceedings are generally public, there is a legitimate interest in keeping negotiation fees and expert invoices confidential. This decision provides a crucial procedural safeguard for parties involved in complex litigation, balancing transparency with commercial sensitivity.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings in an infringement case involving diabetes technology. The respondents, who were non-German speakers, requested court-ordered translation to ensure their right to be heard given the complexity of the technical and legal issues. The Local Division acknowledged the need for accessibility but ultimately denied the request that the costs be covered by the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the principle that while procedural fairness is paramount, the financial burden of specialized services like simultaneous interpretation generally rests with the requesting party unless explicitly mandated otherwise.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich sets the stage for a major infringement and revocation action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries regarding European Patent EP 2 793 430. The court confirmed that both parties would proceed with the full scope of claims, including the counterclaim for revocation. Key dates were set for the interim conference (December 4, 2025) and the oral hearing (January 15, 2026), moving the case into its substantive phase.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this procedural application, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought to have the infringement action against them declared manifestly inadmissible due to alleged issues with party representation. The UPC Central Division rejected this request, establishing a key principle that procedural defects like lack of valid representation do not automatically invalidate an action but require the court to grant time for remedy. This decision reinforces the requirement that 'manifest inadmissibility' must be immediately evident from the pleadings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for infringing EP 2 028 981, a patent covering juice extractors. The court found infringement regarding the contested embodiment (slow juicers). Crucially, the decision also provided significant legal guidance on intertemporal law in UPC proceedings, clarifying when UPCA rules apply versus national laws for past and ongoing infringing acts. This case is important for practitioners navigating the transition period of the Unified Patent Court.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning appeals before the UPC's Appeals Board, 10x Genomics successfully petitioned for the refund of court fees. The decision confirmed that when an appeal is withdrawn before certain stages of proceedings are completed, the appellant is entitled to a partial reimbursement of the associated costs. This case highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules within the complex procedural framework of the UPC.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a complex jurisdictional issue arising from pending ECJ case law regarding international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia. Given that a fundamental question of European Law was unresolved, the court opted to separate the proceedings concerning specific national parts (Poland, Spain, UK) from the main bundle patent action. This decision aims to prevent unnecessary delays in enforcing potential rights related to those ready-to-decide national parts.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC's Board of Appeal addressed requests from 10x Genomics to recover court fees paid during three separate appeal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when they withdrew their appeals relative to the procedural stages (written vs. oral). This decision is significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the application of fee refund rules under the UPC Agreement.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for infringing European Patent EP 2 028 981, which covers a juice extractor. The court found infringement and issued significant remedies, including orders to destroy and recall the infringing products in various EU member states. Beyond the core finding of infringement, the decision provided important guidance on how intertemporal law applies within the UPC framework, particularly concerning acts that span before and after the UPCA's entry into force.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a complex jurisdictional issue arising from pending ECJ case law regarding international jurisdiction. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the application of Brussels Ia Regulation rules, the Panel opted not to delay decisions on national parts of the patent that were ready for adjudication. Consequently, the proceedings concerning specific non-UPC member states (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and UK) were separated into a distinct proceeding.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter regarding the refund of court fees paid by 10x Genomics during three separate appeal proceedings against Vizgen. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when each respective appeal was withdrawn. This case highlights the practical application of fee refund rules within the UPC framework for parties who withdraw their appeals.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural dispute regarding the timing of starting infringement proceedings. The Respondent (Sumi Agro) sought to revoke provisional measures because they argued that the court fees had not been 'received' by the Court before the deadline, thus missing the statutory window. The Court firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP, and starting proceedings simply means filing in the CMS. While the re-establishment application was dismissed, the decision granted leave to appeal due to fundamental questions of procedural law.
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.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific license agreement exhibits as confidential against the BioNTech/Pfizer consortium. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and sensitive commercial information within the UPC framework. The Court meticulously defined who could access the documents, ensuring that confidentiality obligations extend beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
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.