European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 67 · 2,007 total
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The defendants had argued that the UPC lacks jurisdiction because the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law (TEU and TFEU), relying on CJEU Opinion 1/09. The court held that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie allegation of infringement suffices without proof of actual or imminent infringement.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc. and Roku International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants (Roku) filed an opposition challenging the UPC's jurisdiction, arguing that the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law and that the UPC's court structure violates their right to a lawful judge due to Brexit-related issues with the London section of the Central Division. The court rejected the opposition, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for opposition under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie claim of infringement suffices without requiring proof of actual infringement.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, deciding to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and set dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure deadlines.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an opposition filed by the defendants against a patent infringement action. The court rejected the defendants' opposition, which challenged the UPC's jurisdiction on grounds that the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, and held that such arguments are not valid grounds for opposition under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged infringement for jurisdictional purposes and that proof of the representative's authorization for the opt-out withdrawal was not required unless contested.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) relating to European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly applied for leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fee paid for the counterclaim.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., a leading Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, filed an application before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Milan seeking an order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative startup developing an electric snow groomer (Snow Cat). Prinoth suspected that Xelom's vehicle reproduced the teachings of its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436. The Court granted the order inaudita altera parte, authorizing inspection of Xelom's and its parent company Technoalpin's premises, seizure of a sample vehicle, and forensic copying of digital evidence, subject to a security deposit of €75,000.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others (including MediaTek Inc.)
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 792 100. MediaTek, which is domiciled in Taiwan (not a UPC Member State), filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP challenging the UPC's international jurisdiction. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, and that questions of MediaTek's liability as a joint perpetrator are matters for the merits, not jurisdiction.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This case concerns an application for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences in connection with its cost application in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The court granted Edwards' request for protection under Rule 262.2 RoP (restricting disclosure to the public and third parties) but rejected the request under Rule 262A RoP (restricting access vis-à-vis the opposing party), thereby granting Meril unrestricted access to the cost application while preventing disclosure to third parties or the public.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The defendants, based in the USA, Netherlands, Germany, France, and Denmark, requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing. The court granted the request to allow interpretation but ruled that the defendants must bear the costs themselves rather than having them treated as procedural costs.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The Local Division Munich issued a procedural scheduling order on 18 March 2025, setting dates for the interim conference, written procedure, and oral hearing, and subsequently issued a rectification order on 19 March 2025 to correct typographical errors in the original scheduling order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action and counterclaimant for revocation, filed a procedural application seeking to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the ground that Suinno's appointed representative held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company and was therefore ineligible to represent it. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the lack of valid representation requires granting the party an opportunity to remedy the deficit rather than declaring the action inadmissible, and that the matter required further in-depth analysis beyond what constitutes manifest inadmissibility.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court ordered a 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings, and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The panel ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while allowing the remaining parts of the case to proceed to a decision on the merits without waiting for the pending ECJ decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte).
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hurom Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 028 981 relating to a juice extractor, sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for patent infringement regarding slow juicers marketed under the name 'AUTO10' in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The Local Division Mannheim addressed key intertemporal law questions regarding the applicable substantive law (UPCA vs. national laws) for acts before and after the UPCA's entry into force on 1 June 2023. The court found infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, granted an injunction, ordered information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from channels of commerce, and awarded EUR 56,000 in interim legal costs.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court applied Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The court ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while the main proceedings concerning UPC member states could proceed to a decision on the merits.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings concerning EP 4108782. After allowing withdrawal of the appeals, the court granted 10x's requests for partial reimbursement of court fees based on Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of the written procedure and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of the oral procedure.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCO
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor. The Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' infringed the patent. The court established key principles on the intertemporal applicability of substantive law under the UPCA versus national laws, holding that UPCA applies to ongoing infringing acts continued after 1 June 2023, and that information rights under the UPCA extend to pre-entry-into-force periods. The court found partial infringement and ordered remedies including injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1, which relates to a boost power factor correction (Boost-PFC) circuit. The court held that the accused LED driver embodiment did not infringe the patent because its capacitor did not satisfy the claimed decoupling element requirement, while also rejecting the defendants' validity attacks, including new arguments raised only at the oral hearing.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of three appeals filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning the production of documents in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. relating to EP 4108782. The appellants applied for withdrawal of the appeals with the respondent's consent, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4108782, in which 10x Genomics and Harvard College (appellants) sought to withdraw their appeals against three orders of the Local Division Hamburg that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP. Vizgen consented to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
10x Genomics and Harvard College (collectively '10x') appealed three orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 4108782. Before a decision on the appeals, 10x requested withdrawal of all three appeals, and Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and noted that no cost decision was needed since both parties waived cost claims.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court rejected both parties' applications under Rule 36 RoP for leave to exchange further pleadings in the infringement proceedings. The plaintiff had improperly introduced new arguments about equivalent patent infringement in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation without first obtaining leave, and its subsequent formal application was filed too late and lacked sufficient justification.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
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.