European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 67 · 2,007 total
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for file inspection (Akteneinsicht) under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had initially granted file inspection, but Respondent Huawei Technologies sought Panel Review under Rule 333 RoP and requested suspension of the order. The Rapporteur then suspended and modified his original order under Rule 335 RoP, holding that file inspection would only be granted after the final conclusion of the Panel Review proceedings to prevent the review from being rendered moot.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) addresses three applications in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP4066856 and EP4226941. The court granted GSK's application under R.263 RoP to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application seeking to strike out late-filed submissions and evidence from GSK's Reply, and ordered GSK to provide a tabular overview of its 51 conditional auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit them to ten or dismiss them en bloc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. & BrainRobotics Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, and sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' opposition by March 9, 2026, and for the respondents to surrebut by March 23, 2026.
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2590626 held by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. The defendants (Pfizer and BioNTech entities, collectively 'PBNT') requested the court to limit GSK's auxiliary requests to ten and to extend the deadline for filing their rejoinder. The court dismissed the request to limit auxiliary requests but ordered GSK to provide a tabular overview of its auxiliary requests, and granted a one-week extension for PBNT's rejoinder submissions.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG before the Local Chamber Mannheim for infringement of European Patent EP 2 951 625, which relates to an optical apparatus for combining laser light. The dispute concerned IPG's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers (two-beam lasers with adjustable mode beam capability). The court found infringement, rejected IPG's counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, provisional damages of €115,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid with cooperating connection and retaining elements. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France, Viatris Santé
Gowling WLG, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, requested access to the case file of proceedings between Merz and Viatris (UPC_CFI_697/2025) concerning EP2377536 and its SPC. The Paris Local Division granted limited access, restricting disclosure to documents and submissions specifically relating to the 'unreasonable delay' point of law under Rule 211.4 RoP, which was the sole issue decided in the final order of 21 November 2025.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Provisional procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants filed a request under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure for protection of confidential information, seeking to designate certain information in their pleadings and annexes as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. The plaintiff raised objections to the confidentiality designation, arguing the information did not require such protection.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
A procedural order of the Court of First Instance addressing three applications in a patent infringement action concerning EP2590626. The court granted GSK's R.263 application to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application to strike out GSK's allegedly late-filed submissions and evidence, and ordered GSK to submit a tabular overview of its 40 auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit the number of ARs to ten or dismiss them en bloc.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Others v.Amgen, Inc.
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division concerned EP 3 296 274, involving an infringement action by Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants including Hisense and TCL entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Hisense defendants. During the interim procedure, the claimant partially withdrew the infringement action against the Hisense defendants, and the Hisense defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to each other's requests. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed against the Hisense defendants, and ordered 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fees to the Hisense defendants.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Order
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. and Others (Netgear Deutschland GmbH and Others as Respondents before Court of First Instance)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Huawei's appeals against an order of the Local Chamber Munich granting TP-Link access to certain redacted documents filed in infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321. The court held that TP-Link had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent, and that Huawei failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming confidentiality under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Productie S.A. and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against six entities of the Bosch group concerning European Patent EP 4144599 B1. Five Bosch defendants (later joined by the sixth) filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 challenging the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division and the language of proceedings, arguing that the conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court were not met. The judge-rapporteur joined the two preliminary objections and rejected them, holding that the requirement that the action concern the 'same infringement' refers to the violation of the same patent by all defendants and does not require identity of the products alleged to infringe across all defendants.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB
Unified Patent Court decision.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Appeal from the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision invalidating European Patent EP 2 548 648 (relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material) and dismissing the infringement action. The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance, upheld the validity of the patent in its granted form, found direct and indirect infringement by Europe Forestry's 'Europe Grinders'/'Europe Chip Mills' products, and granted remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, information, and damages.
bioMérieux UK Limited and Others v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
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.