European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 73 · 2,185 total
BYD Company Ltd & Others v.BMS Innovations, LLC
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a Declaration of Non-Infringement (DNI) action filed by BYD entities against BMS Innovations, LLC, the proprietor of European Patent EP2937706. BMSI sought to have BYD's DNI action dismissed as inadmissible under Rules 61(1), 361, and 362 RoP, arguing that BYD failed to provide full particulars of the acts in question before filing. The Court rejected BMSI's requests in their entirety, finding that BYD's pre-filing letter of 18 May 2026 contained sufficient information and that the DNI action was not manifestly inadmissible or lacking foundation in law.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd. & Others
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 3 960 072 B1 relating to compact on-body physiological monitoring devices, sought provisional measures from the UPC Milan Local Division against five related entities (Shenzhen SiSensing, SiBionics GmbH, Sibio Technology, Sibio PTE, and Shanghai International Holding) for their planned commercialization of the GS3-R continuous glucose monitoring system. The Court granted the provisional injunction, prohibiting the respondents from infringing the patent in the relevant Contracting Member States, ordered disclosure of distribution channels, imposed capped penalty payments for non-compliance, and awarded Abbott an interim cost award of 120,000 EUR.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence under Rule 197.3 RoP in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 4 285 308 B8 ('Securely Registering a Sequence of Transactions'). The applicant fiskaly GmbH sought evidence preservation against SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. The court largely upheld the original April 27, 2026 order, finding plausible grounds for suspected infringement, and granted a supplementary auxiliary request requiring the expert to transport secured materials to the court's office if a main action is filed.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.
The defendants, four Amazon Web Services entities belonging to the same corporate group, applied for alignment of deadlines for filing their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation, since the statement of claim had been served on them on different dates. The claimant agreed to alignment but proposed 29 October 2026 as the common deadline, while the defendants requested 11 November 2026. The judge-rapporteur aligned all deadlines to run from 29 July 2026, the earliest date of service, ordering all defendants to file their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation by 29 October 2026.
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc. and American Wave Machines, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. WhiteWater had no objections to the request, while American Wave opposed it and sought protective measures.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This order concerns the release of a cost security deposit (Prozesskostensicherheit) in proceedings before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide €150,000 in cost security for the appeal proceedings. After the defendant fully paid the cost assessment amount of €38,230.10 owed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff confirmed receipt, the defendant applied for release of the security deposit, to which the plaintiff consented.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This case before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Rule 296(3) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the effect of resuming previously stayed proceedings on procedural time limits. The parties had jointly requested a stay for amicable settlement negotiations, which ultimately failed. The court ruled that procedural periods resume from the date of the resumption order, taking into account the periods that had already elapsed prior to the stay, rather than beginning to run entirely afresh.
Amycel, LLC v.[Appellant] (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellant's principal request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation facilities (English to Polish) during an oral hearing in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350. The appellant, a natural person and the defendant in the first instance proceedings, argued that his limited command of English justified Court-arranged interpretation under Art. 51(2) UPCA. The Court held that the conditions for ordering interpretation were not met, as the appellant was duly represented by a professional representative and had not shown that his personal attendance rendered Court-arranged interpretation appropriate. The Court granted the alternative request, permitting the appellant to engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed the interpretation of Rule 296.3 RoP regarding how procedural time limits resume after a stay of proceedings is lifted. The parties had jointly requested a stay for settlement negotiations, which was granted from 29 May 2026 to 1 September 2026. When negotiations failed, the defendants argued that time limits should start completely fresh, while the plaintiff argued they should resume accounting for time already elapsed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's interpretation, holding that R. 296.3 RoP provides for a suspension (not interruption) of time limits, meaning they resume from the date the stay ends while accounting for the time already elapsed before the suspension.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection under Rule 192 RoP. Essity, proprietor of European patent EP 3 289 139 relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers, had obtained an ex parte order from the Hague Local Division allowing evidence preservation against WEPA, including the questioning of WEPA's personnel. The Court of Appeal partially upheld WEPA's appeal, ruling that Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant's personnel on technical details, while rejecting WEPA's prior use right defense and compensation claim.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, directed at the Disney+ streaming service. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, challenging novelty and inventive step. The court found the patent valid as amended in its auxiliary requests and partially infringed, granting injunctive relief, information and disclosure orders, and damages, while dismissing other aspects of the infringement action.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, directed at a wind turbine power transmission system. The court partially revoked the patent in respect of claims 21 and 22 but maintained it as amended according to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1. The court also addressed important headnotes on the interpretation of entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
This is an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued alongside a main decision on the same day in proceedings involving InterDigital CE Patent Holdings as claimant and multiple Walt Disney Company entities as defendants regarding European Patent EP 2 080 349. The court classified certain information from the main decision as confidential and restricted access to the claimant's outside counsels and two named representatives.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant, Yangtze Memory Technologies, sought to disregard Defendants' new arguments introduced for the first time in their Rejoinder regarding an alleged prior use right based on the Z01M die and the assertion that the 'internal mode' is deactivated in commercially sold devices comprising the Y2BM die. The court deferred the decision on whether to reject these arguments as belated until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to file a further written pleading by 17 September 2026 to respond to the new arguments as a precautionary measure.
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant Iagon provide security for costs of EUR 112,000, citing concerns about Iagon's financial position and the enforceability of any cost order in the United Arab Emirates. The court rejected the defendants' request, finding that the defendants had not sufficiently credibly demonstrated that Iagon's financial position or the enforceability of a cost order in the UAE justified ordering security for costs.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd.
This is an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court's Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, directed at a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The plaintiff Aesculap AG alleged direct and indirect infringement by three Shanghai-based defendants. The court found Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediary providing services related to the infringing products and issued injunctive relief and information orders against it, while dismissing the claims against the other defendants.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Fujifilm Corporation's application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA against the Court of Appeal's earlier decision of 2 June 2026, which had set aside the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of the defence of private prior use and dismissed the infringement action concerning EP 3 351 174. Fujifilm also requested that the application for rehearing be granted suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for suspensive effect, holding that Fujifilm had failed to provide specific reasons or identify particular prejudice justifying a departure from the general rule that applications for rehearing do not have suspensive effect.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, and WARMCOOK
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Korean company HUROM relating to a juice extraction module for a slow juicer. HUROM had sued NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK (who market competing 'Kuvings' brand juicers) for patent infringement before the Paris Local Division, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal dismissed HUROM's appeal against the partial revocation of the patent and against the dismissal of its infringement claims, and also dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal in part as inadmissible and in part as unfounded.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.
This appeal concerned an order by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application for production of evidence in infringement proceedings relating to EP 2 791 402, a patent concerning UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error of law, manifest error of assessment, or failure to apply the requirements of R. 190 RoP, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. and Others
Aesculap AG brought an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court against three defendants for direct and indirect infringement of European patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following the oral hearing on 17 June 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement, which they jointly requested the court to confirm under Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of its details, and confirmed that each party bears its own costs, while the proceedings continue against defendant 2.
SprintRay Inc. v.Beklagter zu 1.) und Beklagter zu 2.) (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
This is an order from the Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The court rejected the main request to change the language and the subsidiary requests to file submissions and conduct hearings in English, but granted the further subsidiary request allowing the defendants to bring their own interpreters at their own cost.
SprintRay Inc. v.[Defendants] (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
This order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Paris concerns a request by the defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure in two related cases involving patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court rejected the primary request to change the language to English, as well as the alternative requests to file submissions in English and conduct hearings in English, while granting the further alternative request to allow the defendants to bring their own interpreters at their own cost. The court also granted leave to appeal.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
This is a Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division Mannheim case concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1, in which iCAT Corporation (the Claimant) brought an action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH (the Defendants). The Defendants filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of recoverable damages to five years prior to the date the action was brought. The Court, presided over by judge-rapporteur Thomas Adocker, dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible because it did not concern the Court's jurisdiction, competence, or the language of the proceedings as required by Rule 19.1 RoP.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Section Munich) addressed preliminary issues in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The court ruled that claimant SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), making its reduced court fee payment adequate. The court provisionally set the value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected SYPOX's request to lower the ceiling for recoverable costs, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in The Hague allowed the withdrawal of three parallel infringement actions (UPC-CFI-1568/2025, UPC-CFI-1791/2025, and UPC-CFI-1793/2025) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities, after Ericsson informed the Court it had reached a settlement with all defendants. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 25% of the court fees paid, reduced from the standard 50% due to the Claimant's procedural conduct in filing several parallel proceedings across different UPC divisions.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, with Vivo having filed a counterclaim for revocation of EP3407524. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied to withdraw their respective claims. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and noted that no cost decision or court fees reimbursement application was sought.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted Cilag GmbH International's request for interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for infringement of European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-operated surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The court found that the respondents' distribution of the 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero' products infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court ordered cessation of infringing activities in Germany, imposed penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, and required the respondents to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others
This decision of the UPC Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) concerns the withdrawal of infringement action UPC-CFI-191/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC-CFI-617/2025 between Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation as claimants and multiple Moderna entities as defendants, regarding European Patent EP2279254. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested closure of the proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 25% of court fees, reduced from the standard 50% due to exceptional circumstances.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. infringed European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1, owned by Huwais IP Holding LLC and exclusively licensed to Versah LLC. The patent concerns a rotary osteotome (dental tool) with an enhanced flute profile featuring continuously negative rake angles. The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting orders, recall orders, and a finding of liability for damages.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others
This case before the Local Division of The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-192/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-607/2025) regarding European Patent EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal of their claims after reaching a settlement, and the court allowed the withdrawal and declared both proceedings closed. However, the court dismissed the parties' requests for reimbursement of court fees, holding that under the amended Rule 370.9(e) RoP applicable to requests filed in 2026, reimbursement is only available before closure of the written phase, and these proceedings had already entered the interim phase.
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.