European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 63 · 1,878 total
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd
This order concerns proceedings involving two divisional European patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Moderna entities. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office: EP941 by the Opposition Division on June 24, 2026, and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on July 20, 2026, both for lack of novelty. The Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear Moderna's costs, and postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings pending the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Cybex GmbH, Riedingerstraße 18, 95448 Bayreuth, vertreten du v.Respondent
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The applicant relied on a narrower claim set combining Claims 1 and 2 of the patent as granted. The court addressed two key procedural issues: whether relying on a narrower claim set precludes preliminary measures, and whether auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief should be admitted. The court ordered preliminary injunctive relief against the respondents in multiple UPC member states.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., 5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu - 13595 - Seongnam-si, v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology against several ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH regarding EP 3 849 157, along with two counterclaims for revocation filed by ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer GmbH. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and both counterclaims for revocation without requesting a cost decision. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each party that had paid them.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA,Rue de l’Institut 89, 1330 Ri v.the Netherlands, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V., Rijksweg 12, 2870 Puurs-S
This procedural order concerns three related actions before the Hague Local Division involving GSK as claimant and a group of Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') as defendants, regarding two divisional patents EP856 and EP941. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office—EP941 by the opposition division on 24 June 2026 and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on 20 July 2026—for lack of novelty. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear the costs, and postponed its decision on PBNT's request to stay the remaining proceedings pending the issuance of the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Niche Biomedical, Inc., (doing business as ANEUVO), 10940 Wi v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the assessment of recoverable costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant (Niche Biomedical/ANEUVO) sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% under Rule 152(2) RoP. The court held that no proper request to raise the ceiling had been made, as merely requesting reimbursement of costs exceeding the ceiling does not constitute an explicit request to raise it. The court set the recoverable costs at the applicable ceiling of EUR 112,000.00 and rejected the remainder of the request.
Dolby International AB, Dublin, Ireland, Vectis IP Ltd., London, United Kingdom v.CPYou B.V., ´sHertogenbosch, The Netherlands, Acer Italy s.r.l., Arese, Italy
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Dolby and Vectis appealed an order from the Local Division The Hague that had admitted Vectis's intervention in infringement proceedings and declared a counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. They requested a stay of the proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay, finding that the impugned order was not manifestly wrong, that neither R. 21.2 RoP nor R. 295(m) RoP justified a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223 RoP. The Court additionally held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the JR order did not adversely affect Dolby.
Dolby International AB, Dublin, Ireland, Vectis IP Ltd., London, United Kingdom v.CPYou B.V., ´sHertogenbosch, The Netherlands, Acer Italy s.r.l., Arese, Italy
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague that had admitted Vectis's intervention in infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 3 079 153 and declared a counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The appellants sought a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for a stay, finding that the impugned order was not manifestly wrong, and additionally held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the JR order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Julius Blum GmbH, (Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte GmbH & Co KG) v.Arturo Salice S.p.A., Via Provinciale Novedratese, 10, 22060 , Novedrate Como), IT
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438 relating to a furniture hinge. Julius Blum GmbH (Austria) sued Arturo Salice S.p.A. (Italy) for infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. Following an interim hearing held on July 31, 2026, the presiding judge addressed procedural matters including the value in dispute, settlement possibilities, cost arrangements, expert and witness requirements, interpretation issues, and further written submissions, confirming the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632 after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Nera Innovations Ltd. had appealed the Local Division Hamburg's decision dismissing its infringement action and partially revoking the patent, while Xiaomi had cross-appealed the counterclaim decision. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal requests and made no cost applications, leading the court to declare the proceedings terminated.
penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def v.Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-08-03) under reference UPC_EE030B5C43, penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def appeared in dispute with Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in appeals arising from proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg regarding EP 2 642 632. The Court of Appeal granted Nera's requests to disregard Xiaomi's late-filed expert opinion (Exhibit FBD-T38) and book excerpt (Exhibit FBD-T39), as well as Xiaomi's inventive step arguments based on D1, D2, and D4 that were raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings.
Bostik, Inc., 53226, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, US v.1-Henkel France, 4-Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
Bostik, Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging, sued multiple Henkel entities for allegedly infringing the patent through their Loctite® Liofol products in several European territories. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division declared the patent invalid in its entirety, finding that claim 1 as granted extended beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter) because it encompassed embodiments with adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm not supported by the original filing. Consequently, Bostik's infringement action was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs.
BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra v.KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-30) under reference UPC_AEFD96D0F6, BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra appeared in dispute with KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics GmbH, and Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP2047617, owned by IMPRENDITORE PTY LIMITED, brought by Qord IP Protection LLC against SmartThings, Inc. and three Samsung entities. The parties agreed that Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) would voluntarily appear and be represented by Dr. Ebersohl, subject to alignment of the deadlines for the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur confirmed the agreed alignment of deadlines to 26 October 2026 for all defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé in an infringement action brought by the Merz entities before the UPC Paris Local Division regarding French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 (based on EP 2 377 536). Viatris sought primarily a stay and for the court to decline jurisdiction in favor of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, arguing lis pendens under Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and alternatively a stay under Article 30 for related actions. Merz countered that the UPC was first seised and has exclusive jurisdiction over the infringement claim, and that the criteria for related actions under Article 30 were not met.
Sun Patent Trust, Sabine Agé v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This is an order from the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the total value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), schedules oral hearings for 9-11 September 2026, and identifies the main legal points to be argued. The case involves complex issues of claim construction regarding DRX Active Time features, validity challenges based on prior art documents, alleged infringement by 4G+ compatible Vivo devices, and FRAND-related matters including the admissibility of certain claims and anti-trust law defences.
CA, Inc., 1320 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, California 95131 v.Respondent
This case concerns a review request filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Munich regarding Annex B5 in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 955 151. CA argued that Rule 262A.3 of the Rules of Procedure was not satisfied because the defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) had only submitted a partial extract of the underlying document, and only that extract was available unredacted. The court rejected the review request, holding that an extract from a larger document can qualify as an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3, and that the rule does not entitle the affected party to view the entire underlying document. The Rapporteur's order of 22 June 2026 was maintained, and leave to appeal was not granted.
1) Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.1) Oleading B.V., 518100 Shenzhen, Guangdong Province
This order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) addressed a dispute regarding the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action concerning EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo requested that its counsel be permitted to grant access to certain license materials to additional persons, while KPN objected to expanding the club from five to seven natural persons. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the confidentiality club, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf proceedings' regime, and granted limited access to two named individuals under the existing confidentiality regime.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata
In this legal proceeding before LISBON LOCAL DIVISION (decision issued on 2026-07-29) under reference UPC_32C65DC0E1, TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON appeared in dispute with ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
1- Bystronic Laser AG, 2- Bystronic Austria GmbH v.ASTES4 SA, By a statement of claim filed on 2 April 2026, ASTES4 SA bro
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendants (Bystronic Laser AG, Bystronic Austria GmbH, Bystronic Italia S.r.l., and Isochronic AG) to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in an infringement action brought by ASTES4 SA based on European Patent EP2164678. The President of the Court of First Instance held that the application was admissible, finding that Article 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the Statement of Defence, and therefore R. 323.3 RoP must be interpreted to permit earlier filing. On the merits, after balancing the interests of both parties, the President granted the application, ordering that English—the language in which the patent was granted—be used as the language of the proceedings.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V., Dr. R. Raggers (AOMB)
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by CJ CheilJedang Corporation regarding European Patent EP3508580 against multiple defendants, including Eppen Netherlands B.V., three Chinese biotech companies, and Oostvogels Logistics B.V. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence until November 2026 and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's test results on previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and also addressed the separate question of access to seized technical documentation, suggesting a two-step process involving an independent technical expert or bailiff.
Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany v.Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-28) under reference UPC_79AAF0ABDE, Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany appeared in dispute with Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany v.Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_5A90B0CDA0, SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany appeared in dispute with Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
22, 80336 München, Deutschland, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
A lawyer (Lars-Oliver Eggersdorfer of Boehmert & Boehmert) applied for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, citing professional interest in FRAND issues related to audio coding. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found the application admissible and partially justified, granting limited access while protecting confidential information regarding out-of-court licensing negotiations.
Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent v.Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_59347E41E1, Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent appeared in dispute with Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Reinhausen GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. Nic v.Respondent
Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 concerning a selector for an on-load tap-changer, sought an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The applicant alleged that the respondent was exhibiting a potentially infringing on-load tap-changer designated 'DET-24kV' at its booth. The Local Chamber Munich granted the inspection order without prior hearing of the respondent, appointing an expert, an assistant, and court bailiffs to carry out the inspection, seizure of documents, and detailed technical analysis of the exhibited product.
WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands, Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney D v.ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden
This case concerned an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an order of the Local Division The Hague dated 22 June 2026, which had confirmed a prior order for preservation of evidence in proceedings initiated by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag regarding EP 3 289 139. The sole point at issue was the reimbursement of overpaid court fees, as WEPA had paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees while arguing the correct amount was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal held that under Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees, the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR, and since the value of the action (400,000 EUR) fell below the 500,000 EUR threshold, no additional value-based fee applied. The Registry was instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA.
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.