European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 73 · 2,185 total
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order (inaudita altera parte) for the preservation of evidence issued by the Local Division of Milan. 3V Sigma S.p.A., the holder of two European patents relating to triazine photostabilizing compounds and UV filter cosmetic compositions, had sought evidence preservation measures against A.G.A. S.r.l. and A.C.E.F. S.r.l. The defendants challenged the ex parte order, alleging breach of the duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP and insufficiency of the evidence presented under Article 60.1 UPCA. The Court rejected these objections, clarifying the ex ante standard for assessing disclosure obligations and the threshold for 'reasonably available evidence' required to support a patent infringement claim.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, to reopen the oral hearing in a patent infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought reopening based on post-hearing discussions with an expert who allegedly had access to the Defendants' source code in US proceedings, claiming the Defendants' representative made false statements about the absence of gateway and broker functionalities. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases arising during the oral hearing and cannot be used to introduce new infringement allegations after closure of proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a. o. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed key legal questions regarding the relevance of independent process claims and their descriptions when determining the scope of protection of independent product claims. The court also examined whether an injunction covering the making of a product can be issued when the infringing product has so far been manufactured by a third party outside the contracting member states.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division – Court of First Instance - UPC_CFI_1167/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rules 354.3, 262. 2 and 262A RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 December 2025 Applicant INSULET Co 100 Nagog Park - MA 01720 - Acton – US Massachuset
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, brought by Aesculap AG against three Shanghai Bojin-related entities. The court addressed four procedural matters: scheduling the oral hearing, the claimant's request to extend claims to include an additional product called the 'Bojin Rosenfräser,' the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a new party, and Defendant 1's request for re-establishment of rights. The court set the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, ordered the addition of the new party, and provisionally assessed the remaining requests while reserving final decisions for further deliberation.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
BARCO NV v.1. YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and 2. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 223 589. The Local Division had largely upheld bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement claims while rejecting Windhager's invalidity counterclaim. Windhager sought suspensive effect, arguing the first-instance decision contained obvious errors in its assessment of direct infringement and the dismissal of the invalidity counterclaim, and also requested a stay of the appeal proceedings pending a new invalidity action filed by LS 9 GmbH before the Central Division Milan.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against fifteen Moderna entities regarding European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The Defendants filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim for revocation covering both patents. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure to order the Defendants to split the counterclaim for revocation into two separate actions, one for each patent, due to the different stages of pending EPO opposition proceedings and the capped court fee structure for revocation counterclaims.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
This Order of the Court of Appeal addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206 RoP. The Court of Appeal clarified several procedural and substantive issues, including the applicability of Rule 19.5 RoP to provisional measures proceedings, the referral mechanism between divisions based on competence challenges, the interpretation of competence rules under Article 33 UPCA, and the principles governing interim awards of costs. The Court held that there is no hierarchy between the competence grounds in Article 33(1)(a) and 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that competence should be assessed through a cursory review of the parties' allegations and evidence rather than a comprehensive evaluation.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co. a.o.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541 (relating to solar cells), sued Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its Astronergy affiliates for allegedly infringing the patent through their 'ASTRO N' series n-type TOPCon solar modules sold in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and raised defenses including lack of standing, incomplete infringement allegations, validity challenges, and antitrust violations. The Local Division Munich found infringement, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, recall and destruction orders, damages, and an interim award of costs against the defendants.
YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v.BARCO NV
This is an Order of the Court of Appeal concerning an Application for provisional measures under Rule 206 RoP. The Court addressed issues of competence of local divisions, urgency, and interim award of costs in provisional measures proceedings. The Order establishes that Rule 19.5 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to provisional measures proceedings, that there is no hierarchy between the competence grounds in Art. 33(1)(a) and Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that competence assessment should be cursory rather than comprehensive. The Court also held that an interim award of costs up to half of the applicable ceiling is generally appropriate in provisional measures proceedings.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Pari Pharma GmbH filed a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP3397329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head.' The patent, which relates to a nebulizer head and nebulizer system for providing a substance in aerosolized form, is registered with unitary effect and in force in Germany, France, and the UK. The defendant filed an application to amend the patent during the proceedings. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Milan) addressed issues including standing to sue under Art. 47(6) UPCA and the interpretation of schematic figures by the skilled person.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/11/2025 concernant R.19 et R.334 (g) RdP DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS (Parties à la procédure au principal - Demandeur) - 5 rue de Lissandre - 13013 - MARSEILLE - FR Repré
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed whether to admit the withdrawal of an appeal by the defendant-appellant Strabag following an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff Swarco, and whether the separate appeal filed by the intervener Chainzone (which supported Strabag) became moot as a result. The Court held that the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal was admissible and that Chainzone's appeal became moot under Rule 360 RoP, because the intervener cannot maintain an independent position contradicting the supported party. The Court further ruled that Chainzone should generally be treated like Strabag regarding costs.
InterDigital VC Holdings et al., v.Amazon.com, Inc. et. al.
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested under Rule 115 RoP access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025 before the Local Division Mannheim, and permission to produce a complete transcript with the help of a professional transcriber for use in parallel US and UK proceedings. The court granted access to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf upon appointment, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript, holding that Rule 115 RoP does not permit parties to create full transcripts for distribution outside UPC proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This order, issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The applicant, Topsoe A/S, had filed an application for correction of an earlier order dated November 25, 2025, which contained address errors regarding the respondents SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The court corrected the addresses of the respondents and the production site of the first respondent in the operative part of the prior order.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. - Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes on key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency of disclosure, and the framework for analyzing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for establishing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes establishing legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The full case facts and parties are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which consists primarily of the headnotes section.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated legal principles governing how dependent claims inform the interpretation of main claims, the inherent requirements of medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency of disclosure including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The decision establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter, the test for sufficiency including functional features, and the framework for evaluating inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes addressing key patent law principles including claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes legal guidelines on how dependent claims inform main claim interpretation, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the legal nature of added matter assessment, and the standards for sufficiency and inventive step analysis.
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.