European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 67 · 2,007 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH filed an application for interim measures before the Local Chamber Munich alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219 by SOTRAS - S.R.L. After the respondent filed an opposition, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting the applicant to withdraw its application. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (€6,600.00) to the applicant, while finding no inter-party cost reimbursement.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Defendant's application for re-establishment of rights (R.320 RoP) after his representative missed the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action concerning EP1993350. The court found that although the representative's illness on 24-27 February 2025 was accepted as a cause outside his control, he had not taken all due care to ensure the deadline would be met, given his prior experience with UPC proceedings, the explicit warning about default judgment, and evidence that he was able to submit a brief to the EPO on 27 February 2025. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC (Claimant) filed a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957 against three Texas Instruments entities before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant requested permission to file a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP, arguing that the Defendants' rejoinder raised new and technically complex points requiring a written response. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient substantiation and that the allegedly new arguments were in fact responses to the Claimant's own prior submissions.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP after his representative filed the Statement of Defence nine days late due to claimed illness. The court found that the representative, an experienced patent attorney familiar with UPC proceedings, failed to take all due care to ensure deadlines would be met in the event of his incapacity. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action concerning EP1993350.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC (EP 2 875 740)
The President of the Court of Appeal issued a decision by default rejecting an appeal as inadmissible after the appellant, NJOY Netherlands B.V., failed to pay the required court fee of 20,000 EUR within the prescribed 14-day period. The appellant had filed an appeal against the Court of First Instance's dismissal of its revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 875 740, but subsequently informed the Court that it did not wish to pursue the appeal and waived its right to be heard.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) sought rectification of an order dismissing ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333, arguing that the omission of a costs provision constituted an obvious slip. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) rejected the application, holding that the omission of a costs decision was not a rectifiable clerical error under Rule 353 RoP, and that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not requiring a separate costs decision.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.'s application for leave to change its claims in an infringement action concerning EP 2 787 541. The court allowed the patentee to amend its infringement claims to align with auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30 RoP in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, to incorporate amendments made by the EPO Opposition Division to claim 13, and to add a new allegedly infringing embodiment (ASTRO N8 Bifacial Series) that came to light after the original filing.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning ILME's request to stay first instance proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich pending the outcome of its appeal. ILME had appealed the Local Chamber's rejection of its R. 19 RoP objection regarding the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected the stay request, finding that judicial efficiency was better served by seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question rather than suspending the first instance proceedings.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal request under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Hand Held Products, Inc. requested withdrawal of its request for interim measures regarding EP 3 866 051, and Scandit AG consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the appeal proceedings terminated, finding no need for a cost decision since neither party filed a cost request.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft & Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal filed by ILME against an order of the Local Chamber Munich that rejected ILME's objection under R. 19 RoP. Phoenix Contact, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal, citing the complexity of arguments and workload. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension until April 7, 2025, emphasizing the principle of equality of arms and the need for an efficient resolution of the jurisdictional question.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) had filed a subsidiary application under R. 191 Alt. 2 RoP against third party Cloudflare Inc. for transmission of information, and then sought a preliminary finding that the requested information was not decisive. The court held that such a preliminary finding request is inadmissible, but interpreted the plaintiffs' conditional withdrawal as making the R. 191 application itself conditional on the information being decisive, and stayed the decision on the information request and related applications.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB (Application under Rule 262 RoP in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH)
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure for access to court file documents in a patent infringement case (EP 2 568 724) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE. The applicant law firm AMPERSAND sought access to all pleadings and evidence, citing general and scientific information interests. The court granted limited access, ordering the plaintiff to provide redacted versions of specified documents on an encrypted data carrier or data room, while rejecting the broader request.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. and an unnamed specialist dealer at the IDS 2025 trade fair in Cologne. The applicant alleged that the respondents' 'DLyte' Compact Series machines (DLyte 1D, DLyte 10D, DLyte 100D) infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application in part, ordering an inspection of the DLyte 1D and DLyte 100D machines at the trade fair stand by an expert and court bailiff, subject to detailed procedural conditions, while rejecting certain additional requests.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Former Patent Proprietors (EP 3 170 639)
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 at the Central Division Paris. The former patent proprietors immediately acknowledged the revocation and surrendered the patent ex tunc. The Court of First Instance ordered Stäubli to bear the costs, finding that Stäubli introduced new prior art for the first time in the revocation action without prior warning. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal, confirming that Stäubli must bear the costs of both the first instance and appeal proceedings.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled their infringement dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement. The court also ordered a partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the value of the infringement action at 1,000,000 EUR.
VALINEA ENERGIE v.TIRU
VALINEA ENERGIE sought retraction and, subsidiarily, revision of an ex parte order dated 23 December 2024 that authorized evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) in favor of TIRU, the holder of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation. The court rejected all of VALINEA's arguments, finding no breach of the duty of loyalty by TIRU, that the ex parte procedure was justified, that the request was not untimely, and that the security deposit of 10,000 euros was appropriate.
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Amazon's request to file an additional written submission in reply to Nokia's response to Amazon's appeal, filed just five days before the scheduled oral hearing. The court held that the written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the appellant's grounds of appeal and the respondent's response, and granting Amazon a further written submission would violate the principle of equality of arms.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
MAGUIN SAS sought review (retraction) of an ex parte order granting TIRU's application for evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) based on TIRU's European patent EP 3 178 578 concerning waste incineration installations. MAGUIN argued lack of urgency, absence of risk of evidence destruction, and breach of TIRU's duty of loyalty by allegedly concealing prior art. The Local Division Paris rejected all three grounds and dismissed MAGUIN's request for retraction.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
Barco NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 732 827, filed an application for provisional measures against Yealink entities before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court. The Court held that the LD Brussels was territorially competent to hear the application, but dismissed the application for provisional measures due to lack of urgency, finding that Barco had acted negligently or hesitated in seeking relief. Barco was ordered to bear the legal costs of the Yealink defendants up to the applicable ceiling of €112,000.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit, Inc.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 819 062. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew its patent infringement action and the defendants withdrew their nullity counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party.
Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v.IMC Créations
Ordonnance
Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA - Application to Intervene in Accord Healthcare v.Novartis AG (EP 2501384)
Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA applied to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG concerning EP 2501384 (nilotinib for chronic myeloid leukemia). The Central Division (Milan) dismissed the application, holding that parallel commercial interests and factual similarity do not establish a legal interest to intervene, and that Zentiva's remedies would be contradictory to those of Accord. Zentiva was ordered to bear the costs of the sub-proceedings, with a cost ceiling of 38,000 euros.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action. The court corrected a typo in the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025, specifying the details of the oral hearing venue and time.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the Omni-Pac defendants. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost-setting decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in full, the claimant MSG Maschinenbau GmbH withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH sought reimbursement of €20,797.00 for infringement costs and €18,697.50 for revocation costs, and the court granted a total of €33,224.50, partially reducing the claimed amounts.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This is a cost determination decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, the plaintiff (MSG) withdrew its infringement action and was ordered to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant (EJP) sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court set the recoverable costs at €33,224.50, rejecting the plaintiff's objections to certain attorney fees and the claim for interest on the costs.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. (Application under RoP 262.1(b)) v.Ex Parte
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The defendants in patent infringement proceedings (Chint and Astronergy entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company), to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division Munich granted the application, ordering the claimant to provide security of €200,000 by 30 April 2025, reasoning that China's failure to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention justified an assumption that any UPC cost reimbursement order would not be enforceable in China or only in an unduly burdensome way.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Doytec Automation Ltd.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence against Doytec Automation Ltd. before the Local Division in The Hague. DDT alleged that Doytec was exhibiting a seed counting machine (C-1012) at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 trade fair in the Netherlands that reproduced the teachings of claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The court granted the order, finding that DDT had established a credible, reasonably available case of infringement and met the requirements for an ex-parte evidence preservation order.
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.